IN RE: Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage Implant Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CARTIVA SYNTHETIC CARTILAGE
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3172
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the five actions listed on Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Maryland or, in the alternative, the Northern
District of Illinois. Responding plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions support centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendant Cartiva, Inc. (Cartiva), opposes centralization.
Alternatively, Cartiva suggests centralization in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Northern
District of Georgia, or the District of New Jersey.
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
Arkansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs are individuals that received a Cartiva Synthetic Cartilage
Implant (Cartiva SCI), which is a hydrogel implant designed to treat painful arthritis at the base of
the big toe. Plaintiffs allege that their Cartiva SCI was defective, that they experienced persistent
pain and limited range of motion following implantation, and that they required additional surgery
to remove their failed implant and fuse the arthritic joint. All plaintiffs assert claims for strict
products liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. These products
liability actions will share common questions of fact regarding (1) causation, (2) Cartiva’s SCI
testing, (3) the sufficiency of Cartiva’s labelling, (4) Cartiva’s representations to the FDA during
the device approval process, and (5) the circumstances of Cartiva’s eventual SCI device recall.
With five actions and nine potential tag-along actions pending in seven districts, centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and conserve judicial resources.
Cartiva opposes transfer by arguing that plaintiffs’ different injury theories will cause
individual factual questions to predominate over common ones and that the parties’ ongoing
informal coordination obviates the need for centralization. Cartiva incorrectly argues that the
plaintiffs allege different injuries. Plaintiffs in all five actions assert that “Plaintiff endured pain
and suffering, including, but not limited to failure of the Cartiva SCI, migration of the implant with
* Judges Karen K. Caldwell, Matthew F. Kennelly, and David C. Norton did not participate in the
decision of this matter.
Case MDL No. 3172 Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
swelling and pain, bone loss, [and] loss of mobility which will require additional fusion surgeries.”
Connor Compl. ¶ 86; Kiel Compl. ¶ 114; Phillips Compl. ¶ 114; DiDonato Compl. ¶ 86; Peachey
Compl. ¶ 126. We are also unpersuaded that informal coordination is superior to centralization.
The parties vigorously dispute the extent to which Cartiva has shared discovery between cases.
Centralization will prevent inconsistent rulings on the emerging discovery disputes and otherwise
streamline the sharing of discovery by placing all actions before a single judge.
The Eastern District of Arkansas is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
Relevant evidence and witnesses are likely located nearby in Memphis, Tennessee, where Cartiva’s
corporate successor Wright Medical Group N.V. was headquartered. We assign the litigation to
Judge Kristine G. Baker, an experienced transferee judge with the willingness and capacity to
preside over this litigation. We are confident that Judge Baker will steer this matter on an efficient
and prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Eastern District of Arkansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Kristine
G. Baker for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Nathaniel M. Gorton
Acting Chair
Roger T. Benitez Dale A. Kimball
Madeline Cox Arleo
Case MDL No. 3172 Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3

IN RE: CARTIVA SYNTHETIC CARTILAGE
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3172
SCHEDULE A
Western District of Kentucky
PHILLIPS v. CARTIVA, INC., C.A. No. 5:25−00185
District of Maryland
CONNOR v. CARTIVA, INC., C.A. No. 8:24−03525
Eastern District of North Carolina
KIEL v. CARTIVA, INC., C.A. No. 5:25−00572
Western District of Pennsylvania
DIDONATO v. CARTIVA, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00187
PEACHEY v. CARTIVA, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−01217
Case MDL No. 3172 Document 27 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3