Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. This case concerns the MathWorks 401(k) Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), alleging that Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) in their management of the Plan. Plaintiffs filed suit on May 21, 2026. Dkt. 1. On July 2, 2026, a second putative class action was filed in a different session of this Court, Lowry v. The MathWorks, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-13065-DLC. The Lowry action arises out of the same management of the Plan. Defendants have now moved to consolidate the instant action with the Lowry action. See generally Dkt. 19. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Dkt. 21.Motions to consolidate are analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). “If the cases include common parties, common questions of law and fact, and efficiency benefits, courts generally permit consolidation unless the opposing party shows ‘demonstrable prejudice.’” Piercy v. AT&T Inc., 348 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D. Mass. 2024) (quoting Seguro de Servicio de Salud v. McAuto Sys. Grp., Inc., 878 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1989)). Here, as Plaintiffs concede, see Dkt. 21 at 7, the two actions involve common questions of law and fact, as well as the same defendants and nearly substantially overlapping proposed classes, compare Dkt. 1 (complaint in Graessle), with Compl., Lowry v. The MathWorks, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-13065-DLC, Dkt. 1 (July 2, 2026) (complaint in Lowry); see also Dkt. 19 at 5–7 (identifying commonalities). Additionally, the Court finds that consolidation will avoid duplicative actions and is warranted here, especially where “[b]oth cases are at an early stage and discovery has not yet begun.” Piercy, 348 F.R.D. at 3.
Plaintiffs argue that instead of consolidating the cases, the Court should “coordinate these actions for pretrial case-management purposes while preserving each action’s separate operative complaint.” Dkt. 21 at 7. However, Plaintiffs’ proposal does not address the largest benefit of consolidation: avoiding duplicative work and inconsistent rulings across the two actions. Nor do Plaintiffs identify any real prejudice to consolidation. See, e.g., Dkt. 21 at 5 (emphasizing that the allegations in the Lowry complaint “broaden the scope of discovery, expand expert analysis, complicate class certification, and require different dispositive motion practice,” without explaining how that prejudices Plaintiffs); id. at 8 (arguing that Defendants have not demonstrated the relief sought it necessary, without arguing prejudice).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to consolidate is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are instructed to file a consolidated complaint by August 26, 2026. Defendants’ responsive pleading shall be filed by September 16, 2026.
(MBM)