Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00566/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALEXANDER HUYNH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUORA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF 

[Re: ECF 31, 33]

RICK MUSGRAVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUORA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00566-BLF 

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES; 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE

MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE AND 

APPOINT INTERIM CLASS 

COUNSEL

[Re: ECF 14]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rick Musgrave’s Motion to Consolidate and for Appointment 

of Interim Class Counsel, ECF 31, No. 18-cv-7597; ECF 14, No. 19-cv-566, and Plaintiffs 

Alexander Huynh, Erica Cooper, and Jeri Connor’s (collectively, “Huynh Plaintiffs”) opposition 

to Musgrave’s motion and, in the alternative, counter-motion to appoint interim class counsel, 

ECF 33, No. 18-cv-7597. The Court heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and 

granted Musgrave’s motion in part on consolidation and denied it in part as to appointing interim 

class counsel. The Court likewise denied the Huynh Plaintiffs’ counter-motion to appoint lead 

counsel, which is argued only in the alternative and requests primarily that the Court deny appoint 

of interim class counsel at this time. For the reasons stated on the record and as set forth below, 

the Court hereby CONSOLIDATES the above-captioned Huynh and Musgrave actions and 

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motions to appoint interim class counsel.

Case 5:19-cv-00566-BLF Document 24 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No party contests that consolidation of the cases is appropriate generally, but Defendant 

Quora, Inc. (“Quora”) opposes consolidation for trial purposes. Quora Opp. at 3–4, ECF 36, No. 

18-7597. “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 

consolidate the actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district court has broad discretion under this 

rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Azpeitia v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing 

Co. LLC, 2017 WL 4071368, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017) (quoting Investors Research Co. v. 

Dist. Court, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989)). “In determining whether or not to consolidate 

cases, the Court should weigh the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, 

confusion and prejudice.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). These two cases bring similar legal 

claims against Quora on behalf of, in part, two nearly identical classes for the same alleged 2018 

data breach. Compare ECF 25, No. 18-cv-7597 and ECF 1, No. 19-cv-566. The Court previously 

consolidated the Huynh case, No. 18-cv-7597, with Cooper v. Quora, Inc., No. 18-cv-7680, 

because it overlapped with the Huynh case in much the same way as the Musgrave case does. See 

ECF 19, No. 18-cv-7597. As such, the Court finds that consolidation of the two cases is 

appropriate. Because this is a class action case with the potential for class certification,

consolidation for trial purposes is appropriate at this stage. As stated at the hearing, Plaintiffs’

consolidated complaint is due on or before April 25, 2019.

By contrast, the Court is not persuaded that appointment of interim class counsel is 

necessary at this juncture. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the district court may 

appoint interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify a 

class. The appointment of interim class counsel is discretionary and is particularly suited to 

complex actions, as explained in the Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth):

If the lawyer who filed the suit is likely to be the only lawyer seeking appointment 

as class counsel, appointing interim class counsel may be unnecessary. If, however,

there are a number of overlapping, duplicative, or competing suits pending in other 

courts, and some or all of those suits may be consolidated, a number of lawyers may 

compete for class counsel appointment. In such cases, designation of interim counsel 

clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification 

activities . . . .

Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.11 (2004). Further, the commentary to Rule 23 

notes that “[i]n some cases . . . there may be rivalry or uncertainty that makes formal designation 

of interim counsel appropriate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s note (discussing former 

Case 5:19-cv-00566-BLF Document 24 Filed 04/11/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

subdivision (g)(2)(A), now renumbered to (g)(3)). This rule “authorizes [a] court to designate 

interim counsel during the pre-certification period if necessary to protect the interests of the 

putative class.” Azpeitia, 2017 WL 4071368, at *1.

This is not the type of case that warrants appointment of interim class counsel, at least 

now. The Huynh action originated as two separate cases in this district with similar complaints, 

which the Court consolidated. The attorneys for those Plaintiffs have successfully worked 

together since consolidation. Now, the Court has consolidated the Musgrave action, also filed in 

this district, with the Huynh action. As such, within two weeks there will be a single consolidated 

action with a single consolidated complaint. The parties have not identified any other related 

lawsuits or the potential for additional attorneys to enter the fray. Thus, “[t]his action as it 

currently stands . . . does not present special circumstances warranting the appointment of interim 

class counsel.” In re Nest Labs Litig., No. 14-cv-01363-BLF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115596, *4

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2014) (quoting Donaldson v. Pharmacia Pension Plan, No. CIV. 06-3-GPM,

2006 WL 1308582, at *1-2 (S.D. Ill. May 10, 2006) (noting that typical situation requiring 

appointment of interim class counsel is one “where a large number of putative class actions have 

been consolidated or otherwise are pending in a single court”)). Moreover, each party requests

that two firms be appointed interim class counsel, but neither meaningfully demonstrates why two 

is better than one. Cf. id. (denying motion because “greater efficiency and clarity [could] only be 

realized if the Court appoint[ed] one firm as interim class counsel” but neither party requested 

appointment of only one firm). Finally, at the hearing on the motions, all Plaintiffs’ counsel made 

clear that they believe they can work together moving forward, indicating that, as of now, “there 

does not appear to be any rivalry between the . . . firms.” Id.

For these reasons, appointment of interim class counsel at this time is not necessary to 

protect the interests of Plaintiffs or the class. Thus, the motions on this ground are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00566-BLF Document 24 Filed 04/11/19 Page 3 of 3