New Port Catheter Lawsuits Against AngioDynamics Can Now Be Directly Filed in Federal MDL

The U.S. District Judge presiding over the multidistrict litigation (MDL) for AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits has authorized future plaintiffs to file their claims directly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern California, where she is coordinating discovery and pretrial proceedings for a rapidly growing number of complaints brought by individuals nationwide.

The litigation involves problems with AngioDynamics’ line of port catheters, which are implantable venous access devices that consist of a port component that provides easy access for doctors to administer medications and other fluids, as well as a catheter that carries those fluids into the patient’s bloodstream. They are commonly implanted for patients undergoing chemotherapy or other treatments, and have been in use for more than two decades.

Despite the manufacturer’s claims that the devices are safe and can be left under the skin for long periods of time, a growing number of port catheter lawsuits allege that the AngioDynamics products were defectively designed and are prone to developing microfractures, due to the materials used in their construction.

At least 90 product liability lawsuits have already been filed against AngioDynamics throughout the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that patients experienced devastating injuries due to the high risk of the devices causing infections, migrating out of place or fracturing inside patients’ bodies. However, AngioDynamics port catheter injury lawyers expect that number to increase significantly throughout 2025.

Given similar questions of fact and law raised in the growing number of complaints, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order in October 2024, calling for all federal AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits to be centralized in the Southern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta, for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Direct Filing of AngioDynamics Port Catheter Lawsuits

In a case management order (PDF) issued on January 27, Judge Ohta gave permission for new port catheter lawsuits against AngioDynamics to be filed directly in her court, indicating it would eliminate delays linked to having to transfer cases from other federal courts.

Judge Ohta’s order indicates that defendants have no plans to object to filings into her court.

“The inclusion of any such action in MDL 3125 shall not constitute a determination by this Court that venue is proper in this District. Likewise, nothing in this Order shall be construed as a waiver of personal jurisdiction by any named Defendant, served or unserved,” her order states. “Nothing contained in this Order precludes the parties from agreeing, at a future date, to try any case in this District.”

Plaintiffs who filed claims in Judge Ohta’s court before the direct filing order was issued have been instructed to file a notice of direct filed action within 45 days of the order’s publication.

As the size and scope of the litigation continues to grow throughout 2025, it is expected that Judge Ohta will establish a “bellwether” process, where a small group of representative port catheter lawsuits against AngioDynamics will be prepared for early test trials, to gauge how juries will respond to evidence and expert testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

The direct filing will make it easier for the parties to sift through the allegations and claims presented in the various lawsuits against AngioDynamics, and typically helps identify the port catheter lawsuits that are most representative of the litigation as a whole.

While the outcome of any future bellwether trials against AngioDynamics will not be binding on other claims in the litigation, they may be instrumental in helping the parties reach port catheter settlement agreements to resolve large numbers of claims in the future. Otherwise, Judge Ohta may begin remanding each individual lawsuit back to the U.S. District Court where it originally could have been brought for future trial dates.