William Swoger v. Rare Coin Wholesalers
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17614
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff William Swoger, a numismatic expert, told Rare Coin Wholesalers (Contursi and Kagin) he had proof their Brasher “Punch on Breast” Doubloon was the first U.S. legal-tender gold coin struck pursuant to an Act of Congress and offered to sell that information.
- Negotiations occurred at a coin trade show; Defendants refused to pay after Swoger disclosed his theory that the coin’s weight (410.5 grains) matched the weight prescribed by the 1793 Act for Spanish doubloons (411 grains), implying it was authorized by that Act.
- Swoger sued for quantum meruit, fraud, breach of contract, constructive trust, and misappropriation of trade secrets, asserting his recovery depended on proving the coin was legal tender under the Act.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; discovery had been reopened earlier but Swoger sought a last-minute continuance to depose Contursi four days before oral argument, which the district court denied.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding the 1793 Act applied only to specified foreign coins and did not authorize domestic minting by goldsmiths like Brasher, and that Swoger’s disclosed information was publicly known and therefore valueless.
- Swoger appealed both the denial of the continuance and the grant of summary judgment; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Swoger provided proof the Coin was legal tender under the 1793 Act | Swoger: Coin matched Act-prescribed weight and used Spanish gold, so it was legal tender struck pursuant to the Act | Defendants: Act covered foreign coins only and did not authorize domestic minting; Coin not legal tender under the Act | Held: Act did not apply to Brasher’s domestic coin; Coin not legal tender as a matter of law |
| Whether common use as money makes Coin legal tender | Swoger: Even if not formally authorized, coin that conformed to Act weights circulated as a $15 piece and functioned as money | Defendants: Use as medium of exchange ≠ legal tender; only Congress has power to coin money | Held: Use in commerce does not make coin legal tender; no authority Congress authorized this Coin |
| Whether Swoger’s information had independent value (supporting quantum meruit/trade secret claims) | Swoger: His research constituted valuable proprietary information proving Coin’s status | Defendants: Information was already publicly known or available; no value conferred | Held: Information lacked independent value; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether denial of continuance to depose Contursi was abuse of discretion | Swoger: Needed deposition to obtain facts to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: Swoger was not diligent; primary issue was pure legal question so deposition unlikely to help | Held: No abuse of discretion—Swoger failed to file Rule 56(d) affidavit or show specific facts the deposition would produce; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers, Inc., 681 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard review de novo)
- Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of continuance to permit discovery)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party’s burden to show absence of genuine dispute)
- Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2001) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- The Legal-Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1884) (Congress’s exclusive power to coin money and regulate value)