Here is an update on the Langbord suit.

SanctionII · October 23, 2008 9:48AM

Yesterday a court order was filed denying the Langbords' motion for an order requiring the government's expert, David Tripp, to provide additional information.

The order is 14 pages long and goes into lots of detail (which need not be repeated here).

The order does not contain any information that provides any indication of how the court views this case. It does however state that the time period for "factual discovery" in the case ended on 2-29-2008.

Thus, unless the court grants a request to reopen "factual discovery", that phase of the case is over. There may be some outstanding "expert discovery" that has not taken place yet. If so, I suspect it will finish up fairly soon.

Once all discovery is completed, the case should, absent settlement, proceed into the stage where one or both sides will file summary judgment motions directed at some or all of the claims and defenses in the case.

In the event that one or both sides bring summary judgment motions, the papers filed in support of and in opposition to these motions will have extensive factual information and legal arguments that will publicly reveal details of the factual and legal positions of both sides in the case (which will make my eyes and finger's and printer tired).

Court ruling(s) on summary judgment motions (other than ruling(s) disposing of same on purely procedural grounds) may possibly reveal how the court views the case (especially if any such ruling gives one side or the other a complete victory in the case).

If the case is not completely disposed of through summary judgment motions, then whatever portion of the case remains unresolved after these motions are ruled upon, will proceed towards either a court trial or a jury trial.

Prior to any trial it is possible that the court could order the parties to some kind of Alternative Dispute Resolution process (i.e., mediation).

If the case does go to trial, the court filings will be substantial, including, but not limited to, witness lists, exhibit lists, motions in limine, trial briefs and possible jury instructions and verdict forms.

I suspect that the court will, before the end of the year, issue a scheduling order that sets deadlines for the filing of summary judgment motions and that possibly sets a trial date and pretrial filing deadlines.

That is all for now folks.

I'll be back with another update, probably before the end of the year.

JupitarCoins · October 23, 2008 9:52AM

Thanks for the update.

rgCoinGuy · October 23, 2008 9:53AM

Very informative post for us non-lawyers, thanks for putting it in such easy to understand language.

Thanks for the update!

mrearlygold · October 23, 2008 9:54AM

Thank you for the update. Would it be inapproprate to ask you to make a prediction ?

STONE · October 23, 2008 10:24AM

Now, that's an update that gets me excited about where this could go.

Keep'em coming and thank you so much

Coinosaurus · October 23, 2008 10:35AM

Thanks for the update. Regarding the requests for summary motion, aren't these almost always denied? Like in criminal cases the defendant always asks for one (and never gets it). That being the case, wouldn't it be better to *not* request for summary motion, in order to not divulge too much information? I would think you would want to do this only if you consider your case to be exceptionally strong. Bear in mind that I only understand law from having watched TV

TwoSides2aCoin · October 23, 2008 10:36AM

SanctionII · October 23, 2008 10:38AM

mrearlygold:

I have no idea what the outcome of the case would be if it goes to trial. One thing that would have to be determined before a trial is exactly which of the claims and defenses contained in the complaint and in the answer to the complaint actually survive the pretrial process and end up being presented and decided at trial.

Only the claims and defenses allowed by the court to proceed to trial are determined will the parties and their lawyers know which claims and defenses are "in play". Once this is determined, then other pretrial rulings would have to be issued by the court which determine "who has to prove what". If the claims and defenses that are actually tried include ones which require a determination of whether or not the 10 1933 Saints left the mint legally or illegally, then the issue of "who has to prove what" becomes crucial since the admissibility of evidence in this case is a big problem.

I have said before that I think that any pretrial ruling by the court that determines whether:

1. The Langbords have to prove (via legally admissible evidence) that the 10 1933 Saints left the mint legally; or

2. The government has to prove (via legally admissible evidence) that the 10 1933 Saints left the mint illegally

will probably determine who the winner and loser of the case is.

BECOKA · October 23, 2008 10:49AM

So if the court recommends mediations is this more likely to end up in either a financial settlement or partial return of the coins?

pennyannie · October 23, 2008 10:59AM

Langbords best hope is a jury trail with jurors that do not like government

SanctionII · October 23, 2008 11:56AM

If a mediation were to take place, I expect that the government, the Langbords, the purchaser of the Fenton 1933 Saint, their respective attorneys and quite possibly Mr. Vartian on behalf of the "hobby" would participate [with Mr. Vartian and the "hobby" basically being told to sit, watch, give your view on the matter if asked and do not interfere with the negotiations].

The government, the Langbords and the Fenton purchaser would all have separate, divergent and inconsistent interests in the subject matter of the suit [their respective lawyers would also have their own interests in the subject matter, which may even be at odds with what their clients want, but the lawyers' interests are secondary to that of the clients and should not determine the outcome of any mediation].

I suspect that the government's interests would be similar to what it was in the Fenton settlement [namely that the government wants, for multiple reasons, to have maintained their position that the 1933 Saints never legally left the mint and thus that they remain government property, until "monetized", after which they can enter the realm of coins legal to own]. Secondarily the government would, like in the Fenton settlement, be open to a resolution that results in money being paid to the Government from a disposition of the 10 1933 Saints (hey, the government likes money, just like the rest of us). Thirdly the government would desire to have a resolution that avoids having a new lawsuit against it filed by the buyer of the Fenton coin.

I suspect that the interests of the buyer of the Fenton coin, may, be limited to money and a desire to not suffer a loss on his/her purchase of the Fenton coin. If so, then he/she would simply desire to be paid money [in an amount that would let him/her break even or maybe garner a profit]. I recall that the buyer of the Fenton coin bought it, not because he/she was a collector, but because it is unique. If the possible outcome of the Langbord suit could be a decision [that the Langbords legally own the 10 1933 Saints] that deprives the Fenton coin of it's uniqueness, he/she may decide to avoid the risk of a possible loss of that uniqueness by choosing to sell the Fenton coin [thus allowing him/her to be able to say that while he/she owned it from 7-2002 forward until the settlement of the Langbord suit, it was unique].

If, however, he/she is not willing to sacrifice the possibility of the Fenton coin remaining unique [if the Langbords lose the suit] or is not willing to give up the right to sue the government for money if the Langbords win (who in his/her right mind would want to sue the government?), then his/her interest may not be capable of being met by the government and the Langbords [thus forcing the government and the Langbords to go to trial, even if they prefer not to].

I suspect that the Langbords interests would be one or more of many. It is possible that the Langbord family is interested in nothing more than money [which could be satisified by a settlement similar to the Fenton settlement, namely, monetize the 10 Saints, sell them and split the proceeds with the government and the Fenton coin buyer]. I would assume that Joan Langbord's children would be much more likely to accept a monetary settlement than Joan Langbord would (though she might). For Joan Langbord, it would be a greater possibility that she would view a trial and court decision in favor of the Langbords to be a victory that would redeem her father's tarnished reputation (her kids may feel the same way). If family history and reputation are important to Joan Langbord, such matters could convince her to go to trial. One or more of the Langbords may also just look at the case as one where individual citizens should "stand up" against the government and not let the government walk all over them. This also could be a reason to go to trial. Another reason people go to trial is simply because it puts them in the center of attention and they like/need that, hollow though it may be (though it does not appear that the Langbord family are attention seekers).

It is possible that the Langbord family may, between themselves, have a disagreement over "settlement v. trial". If so, such a disagreement would impede a possible settlement.

Then you have the lawyers for the parties (again, their interests, in a perfect world, would be secondary to the interests of the clients). Publicity, prestige, reputation, personal glory, fear of losing, thrill of victory, fee income and simple competitive juices are all reasons why the lawyers may want to either settle or go to trial. Legal analysis and factual summaries would be presented by the lawyers to the mediator and to the opposing sides to serve as the platform from which each party launches themselves into the mediation arguing that absent settlement they will be the clear victor and their opponent will be utterly vanquished.

The interests of the "hobby" as represented by Mr. Vartian, would, in general, be that whatever the outcome, the 10 1933 Saints should not be destroyed and further should be legal to own.

Put all of the interested parties and their lawyers into a conference room with a polished, wise, resourceful mediator and you never know what may arise in the way of settlement. All of the interests of the parties and their attorneys would be aired, discussed, acknowledged, praised, discounted, criticized, etc. with the prospect of going to trial with no certainty as to how a judge or a jury would finally rule hanging over everyone's heads. In these situations, all parties involved take a good hard look at themselves and ask whether or not they desire to maintain at least some control over the outcome [by dictating at least a portion of the settlement] or whether they desire to place their fate into the hands of random chance [a jury or court decision] over which they have no control. Legal stuff takes a back seat to human psychology and interpersonal skills. Good mediators know how to size up people, understand them, understand what motivates them and offer creative solutions that meet the needs of the parties to the dispute.

Such is my general assessment of how a possible mediation of the Langbord suit would be structured.

If a mediation happens, it will be interesting to see if my assessment is accurate or not even close.

SanctionII · October 24, 2008 1:04AM

TTT. For the morning crew.

CoinRaritiesOnline · October 24, 2008 1:12AM

Jeez, what a great summary of what the possible outcomes might be.

Thanks for keeping us all updated.

cladking · October 24, 2008 1:28AM

Thanks again.

Longacre · October 24, 2008 1:33AM

Is there a scenario where the Langbords are allowed to have bare possession of the coins as hunks of gold, but are restricted from converting them in any manner, such as through a sale/trade, use as a security interest, etc., in any amount other than bullion value?

SanctionII · October 24, 2008 1:38AM

Longacre, the scenario you mention is possible, though it would not likely come about, since it would not meet/serve the interests of the parties to the suit or the Fenton buyer.

blue594 · October 24, 2008 2:25AM

Excellent info Sanction. I really enjoy your posts on this. Thanks again!!!

John

mrearlygold · October 24, 2008 2:33AM

Thank you SanctionII

bdunndchi · October 24, 2008 2:45AM

Thanks for the info!

Here is an update on the Langbord suit.

Comments

Leave a Comment