State litigation guide · California

Hernia Mesh (Davol/C.R. Bard) Lawsuit in California

Time limits apply in California. Find out if you still qualify.

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated June 11, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Statute of limitations — California

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 imposes a 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury product liability claims. Under California's discovery rule, the limitations period does not begin until the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury and its cause. For hernia mesh claimants with delayed complications, this can meaningfully extend the effective filing window. California has no statute of repose for product liability claims, making it one of the more favorable states for late-diagnosed mesh complications.

2 years from discovery of mesh-related injury and causation

Filing venue

Where to File in California

Hernia mesh cases involving California plaintiffs feed into four federal MDLs: Davol/CR Bard MDL 2846 before Judge Edmund Sargus in the Southern District of Ohio (approximately 30,000 cases, the largest mesh MDL); Covidien Parietex MDL 2511 also before Judge Sargus in S.D. Ohio; 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.

California data

Exposure in California

Estimated hernia repair surgeries performed annually in California — one of the highest volumes in the nation due to population size

~75,000

Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

Estimated average hernia mesh settlement value for moderate-severity California claims based on national MDL comps

$180,000–$250,000

Source: MDL 2846 comparable case analysis

California among states with highest number of hernia mesh MDL 2846 claimants by state of residence

Top 5

Source: MDL 2846 plaintiff registration data

Medical resources

Clinics & Specialists in California

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center — Hernia Surgery Program

UCSF Medical Center — General Surgery, Minimally Invasive Division

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

12 QUESTIONS

Hernia mesh litigation is a mass tort action against manufacturers of defective synthetic mesh implants used in hernia repair surgery. The primary defendants are Davol Inc. and C.R. Bard (now part of Becton Dickinson), Ethicon (a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson), Atrium Medical, and Covidien (now part of Medtronic). These companies manufactured polypropylene and composite mesh devices that have been associated with serious complications including mesh migration, adhesion, infection, chronic pain, and bowel obstruction. Thousands of patients have filed claims in MDL 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio and in state court coordinations.

Keep reading