Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Case Management & Pretrial Orders (MDL 3181)

This page is a central repository for the court’s pretrial orders (PTOs), scheduling information, and deadlines in MDL 3181. Our legal team updates it as new orders are entered. For background on the claims, see our Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit page.

Master Docket Information

Key Developments and Case Schedule

Upcoming Deadlines

The following dates were set in Pretrial Orders No. 5 and No. 6.

• October 23, 2026 Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel must file the Consolidated Personal Injury Complaint and the Consolidated APA Complaint.
• October 26, 2026 The parties must submit a proposed briefing schedule for motions to dismiss four multi-manufacturer cases on statute of limitations grounds.
• October 30, 2026 Deadline to file a proposed order on the form of the Short Form Complaint, and to submit a joint status report and proposed agenda for the November 6 status conference.
• November 2, 2026 Plaintiffs must submit a revised proposed Common Benefit Order.
• November 6, 2026 Status conference before Judge Staton.
• November 20, 2026 Deadline to file motions to dismiss the Consolidated APA Complaint and the Consolidated Personal Injury Complaint.
• December 18, 2026 and January 15, 2027 On the APA Track, plaintiffs’ oppositions are due December 18, 2026 and replies are due January 15, 2027. The motions will be heard no earlier than February 5, 2027.

Case History

• June 5, 2026 The JPML created MDL 3181 for the Boston Scientific cases and assigned it to Judge Staton, after declining to create an industry-wide MDL.
• June 23, 2026 Pretrial Order No. 1 set an initial scheduling conference for August 5, stayed discovery and defendants’ response deadlines, and set July 24 deadlines for leadership applications and reports.
• July 24, 2026 Deadline for plaintiffs’ organizational structure report, applications for Lead and Liaison Counsel, and the defendants’ preliminary joint report.
• August 5, 2026, 10:30 a.m. Initial scheduling conference in Courtroom 8A of the Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez U.S. Courthouse, 350 West First Street, Los Angeles.
• August 13, 2026 Pretrial Order No. 2 appointed plaintiffs’ leadership counsel.
• August 18, 2026 Pretrial Order No. 3 (Docket Management Order) and Pretrial Order No. 4 (Direct Filing Order) were entered.
• September 23, 2026 Pretrial Order No. 5 created a separate procedural track for claims against the FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
• October 7, 2026, 9:00 a.m. Status conference in Courtroom 8A, as set in Pretrial Order No. 3.
• October 20, 2026 Pretrial Order No. 6 set deadlines following the October 7 status conference and formally designated the Personal Injury and APA tracks.

Court Orders and Filings

12 orders and filings listed, newest first.

2026

• 10/23/2026 Latest Consolidated Master Personal Injury Complaint
  View PDF
• 10/23/2026 Consolidated Master Personal Injury Complaint – Exhibit A: PMA P030017
  View PDF
• 10/23/2026 Consolidated Master Personal Injury Complaint – Exhibit B: PMA P030017
  View PDF
• 10/23/2026 Consolidated APA Complaint
  View PDF
• 10/23/2026 Consolidated APA Complaint – Exhibit C: Known Plaintiffs with Filed Claims Against the FDA
  View PDF
• 10/20/2026 Pretrial Order No. 6: Setting Deadlines Following October 7, 2026 Status Conference
  View PDF
• 09/23/2026 Pretrial Order No. 5: Consolidated APA Claim Complaint Protocols
  View PDF
• 08/18/2026 Pretrial Order No. 4: Direct Filing Order
  View PDF
• 08/18/2026 Pretrial Order No. 3: Docket Management Order
  View PDF
• 08/13/2026 Pretrial Order No. 2: Appointing Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel
  View PDF
• 06/23/2026 Pretrial Order No. 1: Setting Initial Scheduling Conference
  View PDF
• 06/05/2026 JPML Transfer Order: Creation of MDL No. 3181, In re: Boston Scientific Corporation Spinal Cord Stimulator Products Liability Litigation
  View PDF

Note: Later pretrial orders, complaint templates, and scheduling orders will be added after the court enters them.

Summaries of Key Orders

Pretrial Order No. 6 (October 20, 2026)

Entered after the October 7, 2026 status conference, PTO 6 sets the next round of deadlines and makes three other rulings:

• Deadlines: Consolidated Personal Injury and APA complaints are due October 23, 2026. A proposed order on the Short Form Complaint and a joint status report and agenda for the November 6 conference are due October 30. Motions to dismiss both consolidated complaints are due November 20.
• Statute of limitations motions: Defendants may move to dismiss four multi-manufacturer cases, which name Boston Scientific together with Abbott or Nevro/Globus Medical, on statute of limitations grounds. The parties must submit a proposed briefing schedule by October 26.
• Common benefit order: Plaintiffs must submit a revised proposed Common Benefit Order by November 2.
• Two tracks: From the date of the order, every filing in the MDL must state in its caption whether it relates to the “APA Track” or the “Personal Injury Track.”

Pretrial Order No. 5 (September 23, 2026): The APA Track

• Consolidated APA Complaint: Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel must file a single complaint, by October 23, 2026, containing the claims against the FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act. It may not include product liability claims against Boston Scientific.
• Effect on individual complaints: The consolidated complaint supersedes the APA claims in the individual complaints of the plaintiffs it identifies. Any existing APA claim not incorporated into it is deemed withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.
• Separate track: The APA claims proceed separately from the product liability claims. Orders governing one track do not apply to the other unless the court says otherwise.
• Motions: The FDA and Boston Scientific, which is treated as an intervenor-defendant on these claims, may each move to dismiss by November 20, 2026. Oppositions are due December 18, replies are due January 15, 2027, and the hearing will be no earlier than February 5, 2027.
• Short form complaints: The short form complaint will let a plaintiff indicate an APA claim and adopt the Consolidated APA Complaint, which then binds that plaintiff to rulings on it.

Pretrial Order No. 4 (August 18, 2026): Direct Filing Order

• Direct filing: A plaintiff whose case would otherwise be transferred to MDL 3181 may file directly in the Central District of California as a member of the MDL. Complaints must be filed for a single plaintiff only.
• Statute of limitations: Defendants agreed that a direct-filed complaint stops the running of any statute of limitations, repose, or similar period to the same extent as if it had been filed in a proper court on the date of direct filing. This does not revive a deadline that has already expired.
• Venue and remand: Defendants will not object to venue for pretrial proceedings. Each complaint designates a presumptive place of remand for trial, and the court will resolve venue disputes when the case is ready for remand.
• Choice of law: Direct filing does not change the law that would otherwise apply to the case.
• Filing and service: Complaints are filed through CM/ECF with a civil cover sheet identifying the case as part of the MDL. Boston Scientific may be served by waiver request, and the FDA must be served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i).

Pretrial Order No. 3 (August 18, 2026): Docket Management Order

• Applies to all transferred, tag-along, direct-filed, and removed actions, and coordinates them for pretrial purposes.
• Attorneys in good standing in any U.S. district court are admitted pro hac vice without a fee, and the local counsel requirement is waived.
• The clerk maintains a master docket and individual member dockets. Filings that apply to all actions go on the master docket only, and individual complaints are not filed there.
• The court holds periodic status conferences, with a joint status report and agenda due one week before each. It set the next conference for October 7, 2026.

Pretrial Order No. 2 (August 13, 2026): Plaintiffs’ Leadership

The court appointed the following plaintiffs’ leadership structure:

Note: The order states that the appointments are personal to the attorneys named and not to their law firms.

As Liaison Counsel, Ms. Raso coordinates with plaintiffs’ counsel across the MDL, serves as the primary point of contact between plaintiffs’ counsel and Co-Lead Counsel, and helps counsel obtain CM/ECF credentials.

Pretrial Order No. 1 (June 23, 2026): Initial Scheduling Conference

• Set the initial scheduling conference for August 5, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8A, with July 24 deadlines for leadership applications, plaintiffs’ organizational structure, and the defendants’ preliminary joint report.
• Stayed discovery and extended defendants’ time to respond to complaints until the court sets a schedule, and vacated transferor-court orders that set pleading or discovery dates.
• Created the master docket, waived pro hac vice and local counsel requirements, and required all parties to preserve relevant evidence.
• Listed 18 actions in Exhibit A, including tag-along actions.

What the Boston Scientific Lawsuits Allege

Plaintiffs allege the following, and Boston Scientific disputes these claims. None of the allegations has been proven.

• Approval based on other companies’ devices: In its order creating MDL 3181, the JPML described common factual questions arising from allegations that Boston Scientific sought PMA approval of its devices based on published literature about other manufacturers’ devices rather than clinical studies of its own.
• PMA supplement process: The same order described allegations that Boston Scientific introduced new devices through successive PMA supplements with significant modifications, avoiding heightened scrutiny and clinical evaluation.
• Claims against the FDA: Some plaintiffs also assert APA claims against the FDA, which proceed on the separate APA Track.
• Related FDA recall: The FDA announced a Class I recall of unused Infinion CX leads on September 3, 2026. The recall does not affect leads already implanted and is separate from the claims in the MDL.

For a full discussion, see our Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit page.

Related Spinal Cord Stimulator MDLs

Lawsuits against other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers are proceeding in separate MDLs:

Claims involving other manufacturers, including Medtronic, are not part of these MDLs.

Why Follow Boston Scientific MDL 3181 With NGRV?

• Court-appointed MDL 3181 leadership: Judge Staton appointed NGRV partner Ashleigh Raso as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and to the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, and NGRV attorney Mayna Thor to the Leadership Development Committee.
• Court-appointed leadership in other MDLs: Our founding partners have been appointed by federal judges to Plaintiffs’ Steering and Executive Committees in national litigations, including In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2875), In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3004), In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL 3084), and In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2846).
• Clinical perspective: Brett Vaughn is both a trial attorney and a licensed Registered Nurse (RN, BSN), which supports careful review of operative notes, lead impedance records, and neurological injuries.
• Contingency fee representation: NGRV represents clients on a contingency fee basis. We advance litigation costs and expert expenses, and if there is no recovery on your behalf, you owe no attorney fees.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources and References

• Mealey’s, JPML limits scope of spinal cord stimulator MDL, June 9, 2026
• Law360, JPML denies industry-wide MDL, June 5, 2026
• HarrisMartin, Infinion CX recall announced September 3, 2026
• U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Cases of Interest

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The information on this page is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal or medical advice. Allegations described are claims made by plaintiffs in active litigation and have not been proven. Contacting NGRV does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.