Federal Trade Commission et al v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc. et al

Filing 501

ORDER denying 495 Motion to Stay: At the present junction, with the prospect of entering a final and appealable judgment in sight, there is no sensible argument for a § 1292(b) application, and the motion for an order endorsing an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 9/25/2024) (ml)

r;--- --- ·---:.

ORIGINAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_____.:_ _ __ -

Ii ._.'.:'DC SD:\Y

!,

FDOCUMENT

J,

11I

1

ELECTRO ;\'. IC ALLy FILE D' ;
DOC ~=----,...--,..--

l~~uE mm 1/;5(ty

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, Attorney
General of the State of New York,

17 Civ. 124 (LLS)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
APPLICATION

- against QUINCY BIOSCIENCE HOLDING
COMPANY, INC., a corporation;
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, a limited
liability company;
PREVAGEN, INC., a corporation
d/b/a/ SUGAR RIVER SUPPLEMENTS;
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE
MANUFACTURING, LLC, a limited
liability company; and
MARK UNDERWOOD, individually and as
an officer of QUINCY BIOSCIENCE
HOLDING COMPANY, INC., QUINCY
BIOSCIENCE, LLC, AND PREVAGEN, INC.,
Defendants.

In almost no manner does this case meet the standards for a
successful application under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); most saliently,
its

trial

has

already

been

held,

and

as

soon

as

post-trial

proceedings are completed and judgment entered, the various issues
can be appealed in normal course.
With some divergences of opinions,

the trend and weight of

the New York cases with respect to New York Executive Law Section
-1-

jII

63(12)

was applied in this case.

It is not novel.

The Second

Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to conclude that Chief Judge
Breitel's opinion in State v. Cortelle Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 83 (1975)
authoritatively settled the state law on the challenged point, and
was duly submitted to the jury and followed in this case.
An application, in the remote chance a§ 1292(b) application
might be granted, would certainly require months of briefing and
awaiting its almost certain denial.
granted,

If it were unexpectedly to be

the appellate process and expense thereafter inflicted

would benefit only those more interested in the further delay of
this case, for the prospect of reversal is slight.
At the present junction, with the prospect of entering a final
and appealable judgment in sight,

there is no sensible argument

for a§ 1292(b) application, and the motion for an order endorsing
an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied.
Dated:

New York, New York
September ZS, 2024

LOUIS L. STANTON
U.S.D.J.

-2-