Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00292/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00292-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quincy Bioscience, LLC
Defendant
Phillip Racies
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RICK MUSGRAVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04505-HSG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

COURT SHOULD NOT CONSOLIDATE 

THE RACIES AND MUSGRAVE CASES

PHILLIP RACIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG

Before the Court are the actions entitled Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, et al., Case No. 

15-cv-00292, and Musgrave v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-cv-04505. The Racies

action was reassigned to the Court on February 23, 2015, and the Musgrave action was reassigned 

to the Court on October 8, 2015. The Racies case is a putative class action alleging violations of 

California’s consumer protection laws on behalf of a multi-state or, alternatively, California-only

class of persons who purchased Defendants’1Prevagen line of products. The Musgrave case is 

also a putative class action alleging violations of California’s consumer protection laws on behalf 

of a California-only class of persons who purchased Defendants’ Prevagen line of products. Both 

 

1 Quincy Bioscience, LLC is a named defendant in both actions, while Quincy Bioscience Holding 

Co. is a named defendant only in the Musgrave action. For ease of reference, the Court refers to 

them collectively as “Defendants” in this Order.

Case 4:15-cv-00292-HSG Document 78 Filed 01/20/16 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

complaints allege that Defendants misrepresented the efficacy of the Prevagen products.

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) 

join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) 

issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The “district 

court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district,” 

Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California, 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 

1989), and may exercise that authority sua sponte, see Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transp. v. 

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Trans. Dist., No. 13-cv-05875, 2014 WL 6706827, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 24, 2014) (sua sponte consolidation). “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.” Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 

2010) (internal quotation omitted).

The Racies and Musgrave actions appear to warrant sua sponte consolidation under Rule 

42(a). Both Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated California’s consumer protection laws 

through misrepresentations made while selling the Prevagen line of products, although Plaintiff 

Musgrave’s complaint includes additional allegations under California’s False Advertising Law. 

In fact, Defendants filed a notice of pendency of other action on the docket in the Musgrave action 

regarding the Racies action, Dkt. No. 10 (“Notice”), stating that the actions were “substantively 

indistinguishable” because Plaintiff Phillip Racies “purchased the identical product” as Plaintiff 

Rick Musgrave “from the same defendant” and their actions are “based upon the same arguments, 

claims, and purported science.” Not. at 1. Despite these statements, Defendants did not file an 

administrative motion to relate the cases, as required under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), or move for 

consolidation. And during the initial case management conference in the Musgrave action, 

Plaintiff also seemed to acknowledge that the actions were legally and factually related.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties in both the Racies

and Musgrave actions to show cause why these seemingly overlapping cases should not be sua 

sponte consolidated under Rule 42(a). The parties should address the factors set forth in Zhu (and 

any other relevant case law) and discuss whether the Musgrave action should also be subject to the 

Case 4:15-cv-00292-HSG Document 78 Filed 01/20/16 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

pending summary judgment motion in the Racies action. The parties must submit their briefs 

within five days of this Order and are subject to a five-page limit. Briefs are to be submitted on 

the parties’ respective dockets. This Order has been filed in both cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00292-HSG Document 78 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 3