Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02553/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02553-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Serguei Silaev, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Swiss-America Trading Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-02551-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant Swiss-America Trading Corporation’s 

Stipulated Motion to Transfer and Consolidate. (Doc. 35). 

 This Motion concerns three different removed cases currently pending in the 

District of Arizona. (Doc. 35). The first, Silaev v. Swiss-America Trading Corp., is before 

this Court. (Id. at 1). The second, Mann v. Swiss-America Trading Corp., is before Judge 

Silver. (Id.). The third, Christopherson v. Swiss-America Trading Corp., is before Judge 

Holland. (Id.). “In all three lawsuits, Plaintiffs are represented by the same legal counsel, 

and Defendant Swiss-America Trading Corp. is represented by the same legal counsel.” 

(Id. at 2). 

 All three cases concern Defendant allegedly selling coins to Plaintiffs “under 

various misrepresentations and misleading sales tactics concerning quality, rarity, and 

value of the coins. (Id.). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant did not honor a 

purported money back guarantee if Plaintiffs did not realize their initial investment.” 

(Id.). 

Case 2:14-cv-02553-HRH Document 33 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Defendant filed partial motions to dismiss in all three lawsuits, which were 

granted. (Id.). In the present case and in Mann, the remaining claims are: breach of 

contract; “fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, & negligence”; and 

breach of warranty. (Id. at 3). In Christopherson, the remaining claims are breach of 

contract and breach of warranty. (Id.). 

 The parties stipulate that consolidation is necessary to “avoid or minimize 

unnecessary costs, delays, and potentially different conclusions on common allegations 

and substantially similar questions of law.” (Id.). As such, they stipulate that the case 

should be consolidated before this Court for all purposes except motion practice and trial. 

(Id. at 5). 

 “If actions before the [C]ourt involve a common question of law or fact, the 

[C]ourt may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) 

consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court has broad discretion “under this rule to consolidate cases 

pending in the same district.” In’rs Research Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Cent. 

Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). To make this discretionary decision, the 

Court “weighs the interest of judicial convenience against the potential for delay, 

confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Sw. Marine, Inc. v. Triple A Mach. 

Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp 805, 807 (N.D. Cal. 1989). Consolidation is inappropriate “if it 

leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.” Garcia v. Bana, No. 

C 1102047 LB, 2012 WL 2119157, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2012) (internal quotation 

marks omitted) (quoting EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998)). 

 The parties in this case have made stipulations, which by their very nature are 

conclusory. Given this Court’s wide degree of discretion, the Court elects to evaluate the 

issue of judicial convenience de novo. 

 The Court disagrees with the parties’ stipulation that consolidation “will likely 

result in greater convenience for the parties and court.” (Doc. 35 at 4). The factual 

determinations to be made in each case will be mostly unrelated. The sole commonalities 

Case 2:14-cv-02553-HRH Document 33 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

in this case are the Defendant, the products sold, and counsel. The Plaintiffs are all 

different individuals, who made purchases from different states at different times. (Doc. 

13 at 2); Plaintiff’s First Amendment Complaint at 3, Mann v. Swiss-America Trading 

Corp., No. CV142552PHXROS (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2014) (Doc. 12); Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint at 1, Christopherson v. Swiss-America Trading Corp., No. 

CV142553PHXHRH (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2015) (Doc. 17). While there are certain 

parallels between the cases, the distinct nature of each action belies the notion that 

judicial economy will best be served by consolidation. Rather, forcing together actions 

where distinct and significant issues must be determined would serve to mire each case in 

the intricacies of the others. 

 Additionally, the attorneys implicitly acknowledge this unrelatedness by asking 

the Court to refrain from consolidating dispositive motions and trial. (Id. at 5). They 

assert that such consolidation will hinder “Defendant’s ability . . . to fully present its 

defenses in anticipated dispositive motions in regard to each lawsuit.” (Id.). The fact that 

Defendant will have various defenses for each particular case underscores the unique 

character of each action. Accordingly, because grouping these actions would frustrate 

judicial economy, the Court denies the Motion to Consolidate. 

 Because the Court has not granted consolidation, it does not independently reach 

the issue of whether transfer is appropriate. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Stipulated Motion to Transfer and 

Consolidate, (Doc. 35), is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be filed in Case Nos. 

CV142551PHXJAT, CV142552PHXROS, and CV142553PHXHRH. 

 Dated this 21st day of July, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02553-HRH Document 33 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3