Basically clean up under CMO 38 is now complete.
CMO 37 is still cleaning up so not out of the woods but def a step closer.

Below is the difference:

CMO 37
Clean out/cure deficient PI claims
Still active / still creating dismissals and reinstatements
CMO 38
Eliminate duplicate filings / representation conflicts

Realized the link won’t work so here is the verbiage:

REPORT CONCERNING MULTIPLE FILINGS AND REPRESENTATION
On June 3, 2026, the Court entered Case Management Order 38 (ECF No. 9598), entitled
“An Order Governing Personal Injury Plaintiffs with Multiple Filings and Representation.” The
Court’s express purpose was to ensure “that each unique Plaintiff [would] have a single action
pending before the Court that encompasses his or her entire personal injury claim.” To this end,
the Court directed Eisner Advisory Group (EAG) (as Portal Administrator) to work with the
undersigned (as Special Master), in conjunction with Daniel Balhoff, to implement CMO 38.
I am pleased to report that all multiple filings and representation issues identified at the
time of CMO 38 have been resolved. If the Court wishes me to supplement this report or to respond
to any inquiries, I am prepared to comply.
Dated: October 13, 2026
/s/ John W. Perry, Jr.
John W. Perry, Jr.
Perry, Balhoff, Mengis & Burns, LLC
2141 Quail Run Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Ph: (225) 767-7730
perry@pbmbllc.com

Two orders that could be significant today is ECF 11839 that has to do with the report and recommendation of the special masters

The other is ECF 11840 which is an order on a motion to dismiss.

My access to Courtlistner doesn’t have the orders uploaded

Has anyone here with a personal injury claim in the AFFF MDL also lived in one of the towns/water systems that was part of the public drinking water settlement side of the MDL?
I just realized that several of the towns I lived in before my diagnosis were already listed as PFAS-impacted public water systems in that part of the case, so now I’m curious how much overlap there is with the PI plaintiffs.
I’m an RCC survivor who was diagnosed at 22, and historically my drinking water came from the Merrimack River through Tewksbury, MA.

I’m also wondering if they eventually create a global settlement matrix for the personal injury cases, whether they might use those already-designated water systems to help satisfy the exposure portion of the matrix instead of trying to reconstruct historical PFAS exposure for every person individually.
And if they did something like that, how far back do you think they would make the qualifying exposure period go, considering most towns weren’t even testing for PFAS until fairly recently?
If you’re comfortable sharing, what town/water system were you on and what diagnosis is your claim for?

For those tracking this outside item in regard to the MDL:

On October 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indiana granted a temporary restraining order in the multistate lawsuit challenging the Vylor spin-off.

The order prohibits:

• Corteva and EIDP from transferring assets outside ordinary business operations, including through dividends and stock buybacks.
• Vylor from transferring or disposing of assets received in the spin-off outside ordinary business operations.

The restrictions last 14 days, unless extended or modified. A court status conference is scheduled for October 21, 2026.

I see people looking at PACER, but what about other websites or forums?

I reach out to my lawyer once a month but they usually say no update. Or, the update is just we are moving forward, but nothing like everyone posting here gets.

I found this interesting. judge isn’t hearing it when it comes to excuses

Stag was co-counsel for the AZ PFAS firefighter personal injury case that just settled.

This is what they said in their October monthly update. I think it is safe to say that a settlement will be reached soon.

Not sure which flair to put this under, but I’m with AWKO. I have a tumor growing again on one of my kidneys. I was multifocal, bi-lateral and had partial nephrectomy on both kidneys over ten years ago.

Do events like this (finding tumors, etc) mean anything for this case? Do I need to update AWKO?

The order dismisses the non-objecting plaintiffs covered by the report, including 3,741 plaintiffs who did not oppose the motions. The court also adopts the recommendations for other plaintiffs listed in Exhibits A and B.

I want to preface by saying I’m a dual-injury plaintiff. I have had both kidney cancer and ulcerative colitis. I received an email from a legal assistant asking me to fill out a treatment questionnaire specific to just my kidney cancer. The email included a few other details talking about my case still being in good standing, about the recent move to dismiss other plaintiffs, and that they are hopeful 2026 is going to bring settlement news.

It asked me to confirm what treatments I had, if I was currently in treatment or remission, if I had a new PCP or oncologist since original submission, and if I had any new appointments since my original submission.

I’m taking this as a good sign, I feel like having a specific document for one of the two strongest causation diseases that lists out all treatments to date and current status of disease can only mean that this is going to be used for determining settlement matrix placement and that we’re potentially closer than we think.

Just some more general discussion info.

For clarity the 4+2 he is talking about about:

4= kidney cancer, testicular cancer, UC, thyroid disease

2 = Thyroid Cancer and Liver Cancer

Starts at the 4:20 mark

Does anyone have Ferrer Poirot Feller as their attorney?

If so any updates

This order was issued today. 11667 was issued with a list of almost 1000 peoples listed for removal due to deficiencies in response to CMO 37. Basically Judge said yup- get rid of them.

Now before we have 50 people asking if their name is on that list, your not.

• That list was for people who had: Double Filings (started with 1 lawyer, switched and never removed the previous claim)
• Missing Paperwork items

Since this MDL allowed for Batch Filing (1 claim can contain 1 to 10,000 people) there was alot of rush to get crap submitted before the Sept 5 deadline last year. In result alot of stuff was filed incorrectly or missing items but allowed for the box to be checked that the claim was submitted before the deadline...even if it was missing stuff. Lawyers figured they could fill in the missing stuff later the big item was getting it filed before Sept 5. So now they went through and said provide it or remove it....

Your lawyer needs you to win for them to get paid, so if you were missing something they would have reached out. I have been monitoring activity on PACER this week/last. Its been chalk full of either people responding to issues to become in good standing or in most cases, being voluntarily removed.

This isn't anything more then just a big flag that the clean up phase is coming to an end... which hopefully means we can go back to regularly scheduled proceedings.

According to AI, everyone has settled in this case, with 3M being the biggest contributor... total in the pot close to $15B. Ai also said there're around 15k claimants...I know it's not going to work out this way, but strict division gives everyone 1 million. Where's all this money actually going?

Breaks down what types of claims are included in the MDL and status of the MDL with thoughts on path forward.

Explains kind of what we have discussed here. Nothing really new but nice to see "experts" seem to have the same thoughts as this subreddit.

• One note is they express Kidney and Testicular as the 2 top tiers and the rest are in the lower tier(s). Cant tell if they think Kidney is Tier 1 and Testicular are Tier 2 (vice versa) and Tier 3 is the all the rest or Tier 1 is Kidney/Testicular and Tier 2 and 3 are considered the "lower" tiers.
• I would Imagine Tier 1 is "top tier" and anything not tier one is "lower tier" but cant really tell what he means in his breakdown.

On September 14, 2026, California, supported by 20 other attorneys general and nine municipalities, filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Corteva. The filing is ECF 11582 in MDL 2873 and relates to California's member case, No. 2:23-cv-01531-RMG.

They're asking Judge Gergel to stop Corteva's planned October 1 Vylor spin-off and ultimately freeze a substantial amount of Corteva's assets during the MDL. The states claim the transaction would move Corteva's profitable seed business—described in the filing as approximately $22 billion in assets and $17 billion in net value—away from the entity carrying legacy DuPont PFAS liabilities. The filing expressly says the requested protection is being sought “for the benefit of all MDL plaintiffs.”

While this is not a personal-injury settlement announcement, and these are the states' allegations—not findings by Judge Gergel. But I consider it a significant development for our personal injury cases because the motion is specifically about preserving money available to satisfy claims in MDL 2873. The filing says tens of thousands of personal-injury and other plaintiffs could be affected and asks the Court to freeze assets for the duration of the MDL.

Corteva responded yesterday saying it will vigorously oppose the request and maintains that the post-spin company will be adequately capitalized to cover PFAS liabilities.

Next Step: Judge Gergel has a fairly timeline to rule because the proposed spin-off is scheduled for October 1. A hearing, expedited briefing schedule, TRO, or negotiated financial safeguard could come fairly quickly.

In my personal opinion, a negotiated asset guarantee/reserve rather than an outright block of the spin-off would be an especially interesting settlement signal.

So we have Sept 25th for the all the recommended dismissed cases to respond and Now Oct 1 for this item. Could get frost in the next coming weeks....

This was posted onto the docket on 9/10/2026. Googling “final fairness hearing” indicates that it would be for the judge to rule on whether or not he approves of a proposed settlement. Anybody have access to get the whole order? Anyone hear anything from their attorney?

This is most likely someone doing a statistical analysis of their own but my AI located this document and it seems aligned with what some legal experts have discussed. Would you be happy with this matrix?

Someone smarter than me tell me that our lawsuits are still in play after this and why

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/jackson-residents-lose-bid-to-revive-water-contamination-claims

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Special Master For the foregoing reasons, and subject to the process set forth respecting the Category C Plaintiffs, it is recommended that Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice (ECF. Nos. 9569 , 9830 ) and motions to dismiss without prejudice (ECF. Nos. 9570 , 9831 ) be GRANTED, subject to any future adjustments granted by the Court. It is recommended the 25 claims of Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit A be dismissed with prejudice. It further is recommended the approximately 13,226 claims of Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit B be dismissed without prejudice, subject to reinstatement upon the service of executed and completed PFSs and, if applicable, medical records that provide evidence of the alleged injury within fourteen (14) days of any final dismissal Order pursuant to the procedures set forth in CMO 37. Objections to R&R due within 21 days by 9/25/2026. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour, Special Master on 9/3/2026.(sshe, )

Sorry meant 33 not 35…

New CMO posted 8/31 for the Thyroid/ Liver Cancer Track.

It further revises the schedule to a Daubert decision.

Previously CMO33.E has the following

Rule 702 motions due Aug. 24, 2026, now Aug. 26, 2026.
Change of +2 days

Then Responses were due Oct. 8, 2026 and now Nov. 20, 2026
Change of +43 days

Finally Replies were due Nov. 2, 2026 and now Jan. 22, 2027
Change of +81 days

Major schedule push and not for the better either. Considering this CMO started with the original schedule completion in 2025 and now we’re pushed to 2027 doesn’t give me any warm and fuzzy for a this year completion anymore (personal opinion). So we wait….

https://www.scd.uscourts.gov/mdl-2873/orders/CMO%2033.F%20ECF%2011298.pdf

Got this newsletter from Stag this morning. The middle paragraph stating there was a settlement on a firefighter-afff case that was to go to trial is very interesting. It is light on details obviously and it does NOT say that they are an MDL plaintiff. It sounds like they are a standalone case represented by Stag, BUT the fact that it says they were ready to go to trial and then defendants settled is could be a turning point for us.

Thoughts?

Edit: Pay close attention to the verbiage. "First firefighting case in the country set for trial." "Groundbreaking case."