Last reviewed: October 25, 2026
On October 23, Seeger Weiss said Christopher A. Seeger had been appointed co-lead counsel in the Dupixent MDL. That is an update for people following CTCL lawsuits in Judge Zahid N. Quraishi's New Jersey courtroom. It is not a notice to patients that their claims have been accepted.
We checked the firm's announcement against the earlier leadership reporting and the order that created MDL 3180. Here is what those documents tell us, and where they stop.
The request came first
HarrisMartin's October 21 public report describes an October 6 motion seeking the appointment of Seeger and Brandon Bogle as co-lead counsel. The headline says plaintiffs “propose” leadership. Someone reading that report alone would reasonably come away thinking the request was still awaiting a decision.
Seeger Weiss's October 23 release says Seeger has been appointed. We have not reviewed the signed appointment order. We therefore attribute the appointment news to the firm and are not repeating the entire proposed slate as a list approved by the judge. October 23 is the date of the announcement; we have not verified the order's date.
For background on the claims themselves, our Dupixent lawsuit hub covers the allegations against Sanofi and Regeneron.
A name on the leadership team is not a case number
If you have already contacted a law firm about CTCL after Dupixent, this news does not tell you whether that firm has filed your lawsuit. Ask directly. “Has my case been filed, and in which court?” is a more useful question than whether a new leadership announcement means money is coming soon.
We would also ask who to contact for updates and whether the firm needs anything from you now. These are practical suggestions, not instructions from a new court order. Nothing in the October 23 release tells patients to change lawyers or supplies a new deadline for submitting claims.
There is a separate court calendar, discussed in our Dupixent status-conference article. Do not use a conference date to calculate your own filing deadline. Ask counsel about the deadline that applies to your circumstances.
What remains disputed
The June 4 transfer order identifies the common questions behind MDL 3180. Does the scientific literature show a causal link between Dupixent and CTCL? If so, when should the defendants have learned of it? Were the warnings adequate?
The panel brought cases together for pretrial proceedings; it did not answer those questions. The order describes claims that Dupixent caused CTCL or accelerated preexisting CTCL. It also leaves possible inclusion of other T-cell lymphomas for later conditional-transfer decisions.
In the new announcement, Seeger says his team will build the record and seek answers about what the manufacturers knew. Those are his stated goals. They should not be read as findings by the court.
The release includes results from other litigation in which Seeger worked. Those figures are not Dupixent settlement offers. No payment terms for Dupixent claimants appear in this announcement.
Sources
- Seeger Weiss, October 23, 2026: announcement of Christopher A. Seeger's appointment.
- HarrisMartin, October 21, 2026: proposed Dupixent leadership (public summary reviewed, not the subscription-only full article).
- JPML, June 4, 2026: MDL 3180 transfer order.
Attorney advertising. This article is general information, not legal or medical advice for an individual. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results and compensation are not guaranteed. Discuss medication decisions with your treating clinician.
Robert B. Baker, Esq., B.C.S. — Board-Certified Civil Trial Lawyer. 30+ years of trial experience, more than $400 million recovered for clients. About Robert Baker →
This website provides general information. Your circumstances require an individual review.