IN RE: Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Non-Arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS
(GLP-1 RAS) NON-ARTERITIC ANTERIOR ISCHEMIC
OPTIC NEUROPATHY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3163
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:∗ Defendant Eli Lilly and Company moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or, alternatively, to transfer the
actions to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 3094, In re Glucagon-
like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Products Liability Litigation. 	The litigation
consists of 21 actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedules A and B. The Panel also
has been notified of nine related actions.1 	All responding parties support centralization, but
plaintiffs and defendants differ as to the appropriate transferee district. 	While plaintiffs
unanimously request centralization in the District of New Jersey, defendants Novo Nordisk S/A
and Novo Nordisk Inc. support Eli Lilly’s request for centralization in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed
on Schedule A involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs allege that their use of Eli Lilly’s or Novo Nordisk’s
GLP-1 RA drugs (specifically, Ozempic, Wegovy, Saxenda, and Trulicity) caused them to suffer
from non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION).2 The actions involve common
questions of fact concerning the development, manufacture, testing, regulatory history, promotion,
and labeling of the products, as well as their capacity to cause NAION. 	Plaintiffs bring
substantially identical claims for failure to warn, design defect, and breach of warranties.
Centralization will eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial
∗ 	Judges David C. Norton and Madeline Cox Arleo did not participate in the decision of this
matter.
1 These and any other related actions are potential tag-alongs. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and
7.2.
2 	Plaintiff in the Garcia action, No. 2:25-cv-04537, listed on Schedule B has amended his
complaint to eliminate allegations that he suffers from vision loss and now alleges only
gastrointestinal injuries. The action thus is not appropriate for inclusion in this MDL.
Case MDL No. 3163 Document 49 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
rulings on preemption, expert admissibility, and other issues, and will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and conserve party and judicial resources. 	All parties agree that
centralization is appropriate.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
Products liability litigation arising from the same drugs is pending in that district before Judge
Karen S. Marston in MDL No. 3094. 	Although the injury alleged here is different from the
gastrointestinal injuries at issue in MDL No. 3094, there will be substantial overlap between
pretrial proceedings in these litigations. In addition, certain plaintiffs allege that they suffer from
both the gastrointestinal injuries at issue in MDL No. 3094 and NAION.3 Further, the NAION
litigation involves the same defendants and largely the same counsel as MDL No. 3094. 	Judge
Marston thus is uniquely well-positioned to advance this litigation efficiently. 	While the
substantial degree of overlap between the litigations makes assignment of this MDL to Judge
Marston appropriate, we decline Eli Lilly’s suggestion that the NAION litigation be incorporated
into MDL No. 3094. Creation of a separate NAION MDL will allow Judge Marston to determine
the appropriate level of coordination between the litigations, make tracking of cases easier, and
facilitate orderly docketing in each MDL. Creating a new MDL also is consistent with our past
handling of actions alleging a second injury arising from the same drug involved in a previous
MDL. See In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Eye Injury Prods. Liab. Litig., 584 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1379
(J.P.M.L. 2022) (creating new MDL for litigation involving Taxotere-related eye injuries before
transferee judge presiding over existing MDL involving permanent hair loss allegedly caused by
Taxotere).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Karen S. Marston for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
3 Both such actions—Ralph and Morris—were direct-filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in MDL No. 3094.
Case MDL No. 3163 Document 49 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for centralization is denied as to the Garcia
action, No. 2:25-cv-04537, listed on Schedule B.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton 	Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez 	Dale A. Kimball
Case MDL No. 3163 Document 49 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 5

IN RE: GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS
(GLP-1 RAS) NON-ARTERITIC ANTERIOR ISCHEMIC
OPTIC NEUROPATHY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3163
SCHEDULE A
District of New Jersey
KANE v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24−11384
PENNELL v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−02756
OSTERMAN v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−03500
MALVESTI v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−08018
SHEA v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−08033
SYMONDS v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−12651
LAMANNA v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−12656
MARTIN v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−12988
BRADDOCK v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14352
BRINSON v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14358
CURTIS v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14359
HERSHMAN v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14361
HUMBLE v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14363
BURGER v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14604
DOUGLAS v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14673
HENLEY v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14720
PROROCK v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−14721
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
RALPH v. NOVO NORDISK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−01376
MORRIS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:25−04106
Northern District of Texas
GOLMON v. NOVO NORDISK, INC., C.A. No. 3:24−02368
Case MDL No. 3163 Document 49 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 5

IN RE: GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS
(GLP-1 RAS) NON-ARTERITIC ANTERIOR ISCHEMIC
OPTIC NEUROPATHY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3163
SCHEDULE B
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
GARCIA v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:25−04537
Case MDL No. 3163 Document 49 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 5