In advance of a status conference scheduled for August 29 before Judge Rowland, the attorneys filed a joint status report (PDF) late last week outlining ongoing discovery issues, pending motions in the federal courts and the status of the state court proceedings.
In addition to the 7,946 hair-straightener-related lawsuits filed in federal courts as of August 1, the report shows that manufacturers also face about 57 lawsuits in Cook County state court in Illinois, 20 cases in Georgia state courts, two in New York state court and six in Pennsylvania.
In Illinois State Court, the cases have been consolidated before Judge Patrick T. Stanton, who is expected to issue a disclosure schedule tomorrow setting five of the consolidated cases for the 2025 trial calendar. As such, the parties indicate they will be able to provide Judge Rowland with more detailed information about the upcoming trial dates during Thursday’s in-person MDL conference.
Illinois hair straightener lawsuits likely to begin before MDL trials
When an Illinois judge sets a date for hearing hair-straightening cases next year, a state court jury will likely first evaluate evidence in the lawsuit alleging that manufacturers knew or should have known about the cancer risks of hair straighteners and yet continued to promote the widespread use of the products among minority women.
In the federal court system, Judge Rowland has directed the parties to propose plans for landmark trials in competing hair-relaxant lawsuits. He outlines a process for selecting a small group of landmark cases in which case-specific discovery will be conducted in preparation for early trial dates. A jury trial in court is not expected until 2026 at the earliest.
However, the parties were unable to agree on several key points regarding the selection of the guiding persons, as well as when the first trials should begin and the major role that the general causality factor should play in the early stages of the litigation.
While the stated intent of MDL flagship trials is to identify the most representative claims, parties in complex litigation often struggle to make the selections that are most favorable to their side because average award amounts in hair relaxer lawsuits have a significant impact on the amount that manufacturers may have to pay to avoid having to try thousands of individual cases before separate juries across the country.
If, after a coordinated discovery hearing in the MDL and any early landmark litigation, the parties fail to reach settlements with respect to hair straighteners for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, or other complications, Judge Rowland may later remand each individual claim filed directly in the MDL to the U.S. District Court where it would have originated for separate proceedings.
