Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02788/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02788-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

Lawrence J. Warfield, as Trustee for

Osborn Scientific Group, Inc.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Advnt Biotechnologies, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. 

Advnt Biotechnologies, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert C. Bohannon, Nancy Bohannon,

husband and wife; Martin Schroeder,

Ann Schroeder, husband and wife; The

Emmes Group, Inc., a corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV-06-0904-PHX-DGC (Lead)

No. CIV-06-2787-PHX-EHC

No. CIV-06-2788-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Plaintiff Advnt Biotechnologies (“Advnt”) has filed motions to transfer and

consolidate cases it has brought against Robert and Nancy Bohannon (“Bohannon”) and

Martin and Ann Schroeder (“Schroeder”). Dkt. #72, 73. The Court has reviewed the

memoranda filed by the parties. Dkt. ##72, 79, 80, 83, 86. For the reasons discussed below,

the Court will grant Advnt’s motion.

Case 2:06-cv-02788-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 2 -

I. Background.

Lawrence J. Warfield, trustee in bankruptcy for Osborn Scientific Group, Inc.

(“OSG”), filed a twenty-count complaint against Advnt stemming from Advnt’s purchase of

many of OSG’s assets on October 22, 2003, including tests for various types of biowarfare

agents. See 06-ap-00087-GBN, Dkt. #1 (“Trustee Complaint”). The Trustee contends OSG

received other offers for more than the sale price of $50,000, but sold the assets to Advnt for

a lesser amount to satisfy a $266,000 debt OSG owed to Advnt’s owner, Tim Scherkenback.

Id. ¶¶ 104-07. Advnt has filed a separate action for tortious interference with contract and

conversion against Bohannon, the former chief scientist of OSG, for allegedly removing or

altering the formulas for OSG’s biowarfare testing solutions, known as Standard Operating

Procedures (“SOPs”). CIV-06-2788 Dkt. #1. Advnt has also filed an action for tortious

interference with contract against Schroeder and the Emmes Group, former investment

bankers for OSG, for allegedly stating falsely to the Trustee that other companies had offered

far more than Advnt for a stake in OSG. CIV-06-2787, Dkt. #1. Advnt now seeks to transfer

and consolidate the cases against Bohannon and Schroeder with the main action brought by

the Trustee. The Trustee does not oppose Advnt’s motion. Dkt. #79. 

II. Discussion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states:

(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact

are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all

the matters in issue in the actions; it may order the actions consolidated; and

it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid

unnecessary costs or delay.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 42.1(a)(1) provides:

Whenever two or more cases are pending before different Judges and

any party believes that such cases (A) arise from substantially the same

transaction or event; (B) involve substantially the same parties or property; (C)

involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright; (D) calls [sic] for

determination of substantially the same questions of law; or (E) for any other

reason would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by different

Judges, any party may file a motion to transfer the case or cases involved to a

single Judge. 

Case 2:06-cv-02788-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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 - 3 -

While the actions against Bohannon and Schroeder are narrower than the action

against Advnt, all the cases are substantially related to the inventory purchase agreement

between OSG and Advnt. Bohannon allegedly tortiously interfered with the contract by

removing or altering the formula for the SOPs. CIV-06-2788, Dkt. #1 ¶ 10. Schroeder

allegedly tortiously interfered with the contract by telling the Trustee that OSG had received

more lucrative offers than Advnt’s, prompting the Trustee to sue. CIV-06-2787, Dkt. #1.

The case against Bohannon will involve some of the same intellectual property asthe

case against Advnt. The suit against Advnt alleges misappropriation of trade secrets through

Advnt’s improper use of OSG’s proprietary SOPs. Trustee Complaint, Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 255-57.

In its suit against Bohannon, Advnt alleges that Bohannon altered or removed the existing

SOPs and that the formulas Advnt purchased were useless. CIV 06-2788 Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 10, 20.

If a jury finds that Bohannon did remove or alter the SOPs, as Advnt alleges, a logical

conclusion would be that Advnt could not have misappropriated OSG’s trade secrets relating

to the SOPs because Advnt never used them.

Similarly, Advnt’s claim against Schroeder may relate to the defense of claims the

Trustee has brought against Advnt. Advnt alleges that the Trustee based many of the claims

against Advnt on Schroeder’s false statements that Advnt did not pay fair consideration for

OSG’s inventory. The resolution of some of the claims in the action against Advnt, as well

as the tortious interference claims against Schroeder, will involve common factual questions.

Both Bohannon and Schroeder argue that consolidation will not promote efficiencies

and will unfairly prejudice them because their motions to dismiss are still pending, while the

pleading stage in the action against Advnt has ended, initial Rule 26(a) disclosures have been

exchanged, and the discovery period is scheduled to end on July 27, 2007. Dkt. ##80 at 7-8;

83 at 8-9. The Court will rule on Bohannon and Schroeder’s motions to dismiss and then

Case 2:06-cv-02788-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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

 1The Schroeders make a number of arguments as to why they cannot be held

liable for tortious interference of contract as a matter of law. Dkt. #83 at 6-8. The Court

notes that one of these arguments is made in the Schroeder’s motion to dismiss, and the

Court will address that argument in ruling on the motion. 

- 4 -

determine what changes, if any, should be made to the existing schedule. See Dkt. #71.1

Bohannon and Schroeder also argue that requiring them to participate in the litigation

against Advnt would be unfair because “legal expenses would be vastly multiplied as their

counsel would be compelled to participate in, or at least monitor, the multitude of

depositions, motions, conferences, document productions, and pre-trial proceedings[.]”

Dkt. #80 at 8; see also Dkt. #83 at 9. This concern is overstated. Bohannon and Schroeder

will likely participate in substantially the same number of pre-trial proceedings whether these

cases are tried separately or together. Monitoring the larger litigation – which these parties

likely would do in any event – should not be a significant expense, and the parties may

choose to forego certain discovery or filing motions that do not pertain to their cases. To the

extent that proceedings in the three cases do overlap, consolidation will avoid unnecessary

duplication. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Advnt’s motions to consolidate (Dkt. #72) and transfer (Dkt. #73) are granted.

2. The Clerk is directed to transfer Case Nos. CIV-06-2787-PHX-EHC and

CIV-06-2788-PHX-ROS to this Court and consolidate them with Case No.

CIV-06-0904-PHX-DGC.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02788-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 4