RA Capital Healthcare Fund, L.P. v. ChemoCentryx, Inc.

Background

RA Capital Healthcare Fund, L.P. alleged that ChemoCentryx, Inc. and Dr. Thomas J. Schall made false or misleading statements and omissions about ChemoCentryx’s drug avacopan. RA Capital alleged that these statements caused investment losses of tens of millions of dollars. Its claims included violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A, and 18 of the Securities Exchange Act; Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and California Civil Code § 1709.

An earlier related class action, filed by Indiana Public Retirement System, involved essentially identical allegations concerning ChemoCentryx’s statements about avacopan and the ADVOCATE trial. That class action had reached the expert-testimony stage, summary-judgment briefing was nearing completion, and trial was scheduled for September 23, 2025.

Motions and standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), or alternatively to stay this case pending resolution of the class action. A stay pauses proceedings. The court explained that it must weigh possible harm from delaying the case, hardship or inequity from allowing it to continue, and whether a stay would promote an orderly and efficient resolution of the issues. The party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing that one is justified.

Court’s analysis

The court found good cause for a stay. It concluded that the two cases shared the same factual core and central legal issues, except that RA Capital alleged one additional category of statements concerning ChemoCentryx’s disclosure controls and procedures. The court reasoned that the class action would soon resolve some or all of the issues underlying both cases and could provide useful guidance.

The court also found that the relative hardships favored a stay. It determined that it would be inequitable to require the defendants to defend both cases at the same time, particularly because trial in the earlier class action was approaching. The court found that RA Capital would suffer minimal harm because the stay was expected to be brief and discovery and identification of fact witnesses had already occurred in the parallel litigation.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to stay. The case was stayed pending resolution of the earlier class action. The court did not reach the alternative motion to dismiss. It administratively terminated the motion to dismiss, without prejudice to the defendants’ re-noticing or re-filing it, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted. The court set a case-management conference for November 18, 2025, with a joint statement due November 12, 2025.