Swoger v. Rare Coins Wholesalers, No. 13-56501 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against defendants, owners of a rare coin known as a "Brasher Doubloon," alleging claims for quantum meruit, fraud, breach of contract, constructive trust, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiff offered to sell defendants information that would prove that their coin was the first legal-tender coin struck pursuant to an Act of Congress. After plaintiff gave defendants the information, defendants denied payment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the Coin was not, as plaintiff theorized, legal tender struck pursuant to the Act Regulating Foreign Coins, and For Other Purposes, ch. 5. 1 Stat. 300. Plaintiff could not recover because he had not provided the information he alleged he was required to provide pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Further, the court concluded that plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because he failed to identify what specific facts a deposition of Defendant Contursi would have revealed that would have precluded summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Coins / Discovery. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Rare Coin Wholesalers in an action brought by a coin expert seeking compensation for his expertise on a rare coin known as a “Brasher Doubloon.” The coin expert’s claim for relief depended upon the accuracy of his assertion that he had provided to Rare Coin Wholesalers proof that their Coin was the first legal-tender gold coin struck pursuant to an Act of Congress. The panel held that the Coin was not, as the coin expert theorized, legal tender pursuant to An Act Regulating Foreign Coins, and For Other Purposes, ch. 5. 1 Stat. 300 (1793). The panel concluded that the coin expert could not recover because he had not provided the information he alleged he was required to provide pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The panel also held that the coin expert did not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), and, accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the coin expert’s request for a continuance to conduct discovery. SWOGER V. RARE COIN WHOLESALERS 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.