Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00443/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00443-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities 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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MARTIN G. FRASER; DON W.

WATSON; EDWARD W. O’BRIEN;

GARY M. OPPER, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00443-PHX-GMS

No. CR-09-00365-PHX-FJM

No. CR-09-00372-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Pending before three Courts in this District are various motions to transfer cases to a

single Judge. For the following reasons, the Court grants these motions in part and denies

them in part.

BACKGROUND

The motions to transfer arise in three cases involving Defendants Fraser, Watson,

O’Brien, and Opper, all of whom were officers of CSK Auto Corporation (“CSK”). The case

before this Court, CV-09-00443-PHX-GMS (“Civil 443”), is based on a complaint filed by

the Securities and Exchange Commission against all four defendants on March 5, 2009.

(Dkt. # 1.) The complaint asserts various violations of the securities laws stemming from

Defendants’ alleged involvement in fraudulently hiding uncollectible receivables, overrecognizing vendor allowances, and misrepresenting CSK’s financial performance.

Case 2:09-cv-00443-DGC Document 43 Filed 05/13/09 Page 1 of 5
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

1

The United States also points out that there was a (now-settled) class action case

before another Judge in this District, CV-06-01503-PHX-DGC. (See Dkt. # 39 at 4-5.) The

United States suggests that this suit shared some similarities to the three cases at issue here.

However, no party has moved to transfer this case to the Judge who handled that case, and

the Court will therefore not consider doing so.

- 2 -

There are also two criminal cases pending before other judges in this District: CR-09-

00365-PHX-FJM (“Criminal 365”), before Judge Martone, and CR-09-00372-PHX-SRB

(“Criminal 372”), before Judge Bolton. Both cases were initiated on April 7, 2009. Criminal

365 involves obstruction of justice charges against Defendants O’Brien and Opper, both of

whom have since pled guilty are now awaiting sentencing. Criminal 372 involves allegations

of conspiracy (count one), securities fraud (counts two through seven), false filings with the

SEC (counts eight through thirteen), mail fraud (counts fourteen through twenty-one), false

books and records (counts twenty-two and twenty-three), false statements to an auditor

(counts twenty-four through twenty-nine), and false certifications of financial reports (counts

thirty and thirty-one) against Defendants Fraser and Watson.

Defendant Fraser has filed a Notice of Related Cases and Motion to Transfer, which

requests that all three cases be heard by the same Judge. (Dkt. # 29.) The SEC and the

United States have filed what amount to notices of non-opposition.1

 (Dkt. # 39, 40.) In

Criminal 365, the United States moved to transfer Criminal 372 to Judge Martone. (CR-09-

00365-PHX-FJM at Dkt. # 29.) In Criminal 372, Defendant Watson has filed a motion to

transfer Criminal 372 to this Court. (CR-09-00372-PHX-SRB at Dkt. # 30.)

ANALYSIS

The questions presented by these motions are: (I) which Judge should decide whether

to transfer the cases to a single Judge, (II) whether the cases should all be transferred to a

single Judge, and (III) if so, which Judge that should be. The Court will address each issue

in turn.

Case 2:09-cv-00443-DGC Document 43 Filed 05/13/09 Page 2 of 5
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 -

I. Which Judge Should Rule on the Transfer Motions?

The Local Rules provide that if a party believes that cases should be transferred to a

single Judge, the motion to transfer “shall be filed in the case with the lowest case number

and shall be heard by the Judge assigned to that case.” LRCiv 42.1(a)(1); see also LRCrim

5.3 (incorporating LRCiv 42.1 into the rules for transfer of related criminal cases).

Application of this rule is ambiguous in the context of motions to transfer civil and criminal

cases, as civil and criminal case numbers are assigned separately and therefore are not a

reliable indication of which case was filed first. Here, Civil 443 was filed before either

Criminal 372 or Criminal 365. Thus, this Court is the proper forum for deciding the transfer

motions. The Court will therefore consider all of the transfer motions that have been filed.

II. Should the Cases be Transferred to a Single Judge?

The Local Rules provide five factors the Court may consider in deciding whether to

transfer cases to a single Judge:

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.

LRCiv 42.1(a)(1); see also LRCrim 5.3.

Here, the nature of the two criminal cases is sufficiently similar such that transfer to

a single Judge is appropriate. The cases do arise from substantially the same transaction or

event (namely, the alleged securities fraud scheme) and call for similar legal determinations.

Moreover, although Criminal 372 portends extensive litigation, a Judge would not be overlyburdened by presiding over Criminal 365 as well because that case is at the sentencing stage.

Indeed, because the guilty pleas of Defendants O’Brien and Opper in Criminal 365 are likely

to be an important issue in Criminal 372, transfer of both cases to a single Judge will promote

an efficient resolution of any such issues.

Case 2:09-cv-00443-DGC Document 43 Filed 05/13/09 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

However, the civil case, while involving factual questions similar to the criminal

cases, will not involve the numerous criminal law issues likely to come up in those

prosecutions. Moreover, given the extensive nature of the litigation likely in both Civil 443

and Criminal 372, a division of labor between two Judges would likely be more conducive

to judicial efficiency than would transfer to a single Judge. Therefore, the Court will transfer

the two criminal cases to the same Judge, but will not transfer the civil case to that Judge.

III. Which Judge Should Preside Over the Transferred Cases?

Because the civil case will not be transferred, it will remain with this Court. In

determining which Judge should preside over the criminal cases, the Court must consider

four factors: (1) whether substantive matters have been considered in a case, (2) which Judge

has the most familiarity with the issues involved in the cases, (3) whether a case is reasonably

viewed as the lead or principal case, and (4) any other factor serving the interest of judicial

economy. LRCiv 42.1(a)(4); see also LRCrim 5.3. 

Here, the first, second, and fourth factors do not carry any appreciable weight, as both

cases are relatively new and neither Judge has more familiarity with the issues than the other.

However, Criminal 372 is more properly viewed as the lead or principal case, as it involves

some thirty-one counts against Defendants Fraser and Watson, alleging a wide variety of

misconduct, including securities violations, conspiracy, and mail fraud. Criminal 365, on the

other hand, merely involves single counts of obstruction of justice against O’Brien and

Opper. The Court will therefore transfer Criminal 365 to the Judge presiding over Criminal

372, Judge Bolton.

CONCLUSION

The Court concludes that Criminal 365 and Criminal 372 should be transferred to the

same Judge, in this case Judge Bolton, but that Civil 443 should remain with this Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the various motions to transfer filed in these

three cases (Dkt. # 29 of this case; Dkt. # 29 of CR-09-00365-PHX-FJM; and Dkt. # 30 of

CR-09-00372-PHX-SRB) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Case 2:09-cv-00443-DGC Document 43 Filed 05/13/09 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CR-09-00365-PHX-FJM is transferred to Judge

Bolton.

DATED this 13th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00443-DGC Document 43 Filed 05/13/09 Page 5 of 5