Lebens et al v. Bob Green Sales Associates Inc et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 52 Defendants Greenbergs and Bob Green Sales Associates' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10

HENRY "TOM" and LISSA LEBBENS,
and their marital community, and THE
ESTATE OF ELIZABETH
FORRESTER,

11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. C12-5142RBL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.
BOB GREEN SALES ASSOCIATES,
INC. d/b/a PARK AVENUE
NUMISMATICS, et al,
Defendants.

16
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Greenbergs and Bob Green Sales
17
Associates’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #52]. The Court has reviewed the materials
18
filed in support of, and opposition to, the motion, including the competing motions to strike. For
19
the following reasons the Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #52] is DENIED and the Motion
20
to Strike embedded in the parties’ memoranda are likewise DENIED.
21
This case is about the sizeable loss suffered in the speculative gold coin market and the
22
reasons for those losses suffered by plaintiffs. Tom and Lissa Lebens filed suit against the
23
moving defendants and others who are not involved in this motion (Ernest English and spouse
24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 1

1 and Carlos Cabrera and spouse) asserting claims of conspiracy, fraud, negligent
2 misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Consumer
3 Protection Act. Defendants allege that plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof with
4 admissible evidence. The Court disagrees.
5

Plaintiffs invested through Ernest English for three years. They had acquired a portfolio

6 of some 150 coins. English was in the process of moving from one employer (Blanchard) to his
7 co-defendant’s employ (Bob Green Sales Associates d/b/a Park Avenue Numismatics). A deal
8 was structured by which the Lebens would exchange their existing portfolio (150 coins) for two
9 undesignated rare coins and some cash ($50,000 v. $35,000). Moving defendants selected the
10 two rare coins. Cabrera came to Washington to deliver the two rare coins and a check for
11 $35,000. At the same time he inventoried the portfolio and took possession of it. Plaintiffs
12 claim that Greenberg valued their portfolio (150 coins) at between $198,000 to $205,000. The
13 two rare coins traded in exchange were, at the time, valued at $54,000. The total value of the
14 two rare coins and the cash was $89,000.
15

Without more, plaintiffs have asserted a prima facie case of fraud involving all of the

16 defendants including the moving parties. The plaintiffs are entitled to tell their story to a jury.
17 The claims that go to the jury will be decided in the jury instructions. The factual circumstances
18 of the transaction(s) will not change by trimming claims at this time.
19

As for the Motion to Strike, the Court has reviewed the objectionable material and has

20 decided the motion on the merits as they are presented in the papers. Credibility is everything in
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 2

1 this case. Credibility of the witnesses is a matter to resolve by the jury. Defendants Greenbergs
2 and Bob Green Sales Associates’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #52] is DENIED.
3

Dated this 30th day of August, 2013.

5

A

6

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT - 3