Hernia mesh claims: who can file and what to do in California

Hernia mesh cases involving California plaintiffs feed into four consolidated forums: Davol/CR Bard MDL 2846 before Judge Edmund Sargus in the Southern District of Ohio (23,324 pending actions as of Oct. 1, 2026 per the JPML, the largest mesh MDL); Covidien MDL 3029 before Judge Patti B. Saris in the District of Massachusetts; Atrium C-QUR MDL 2753 in the District of New Hampshire; and Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon cases consolidated in Atlantic County Superior Court (NJ) before Judge John Porto.

California applies a two-year statute of limitations for products liability, running from the date the plaintiff discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — the injury and its connection to the mesh product. Because complications such as mesh erosion, chronic pelvic pain, and fistula formation can emerge years or even a decade after implantation, the discovery rule frequently tolls the limitations period well beyond the surgery date.

California ranks first nationally in annual hernia repair volume, with major surgical centers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento generating high device implant rates. Davol (Bard/BD) Ventralex, PerFix, and 3DMax products, along with Covidien Parietex Composite mesh, account for the dominant share of California defendant product exposure.

Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon plaintiffs — whose cases involve Physiomesh Flexible Composite and Prolene Hernia System products — should file in Atlantic County NJ state court rather than federal court, as J&J has successfully moved to consolidate those cases before Judge Porto in the NJ mass tort program outside the federal MDL structure.