Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05102/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05102-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

 The factual and legal background of the instant case is set forth in the Court’s order 2

granting summary judgment dated August 30, 2007 and will not be repeated here.

Case No. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 10/1/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC. a Delaware

Corporation d/b/a SHELL OIL PRODUCTS, US,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MEHDI SHAHBAZI, an individual d/b/a

MARINA SHELL,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-05102

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 1

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[re: docket nos. 239, 240, 242, 243, 259,

261, 262]

On September 10, 2007 Defendant Mehdi Shahbazi (“Shabazi”) filed a Motion for Leave

to File for Reconsideration with respect to this Court’s order of August 30, 2007 granting the

motion of Plaintiff Equilon Enterprises LLC’s (“Equilion”) for summary judgment. Equilon

filed its opposition to the motion on September 17, 2007, and Shahbazi filed a reply on

September 24, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.2

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 263 Filed 10/01/07 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

2

Case No. C05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(JFLC1)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for reconsideration and provides as follows:

(a) Leave of Court Requirement: Before the entry of judgment adjudicating all of

the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may

make a motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to

file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order made by that Judge on

any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9(b). No party may notice a motion for

reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.

 (b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave: A motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration is governed by Civ. L. R. 7-9, which requires that the party

seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or 

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the

time of such order; or 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 

Civ. L. R. 7-9(b); see also School Dist. No.1J Mulitinomah County v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. There may also be other, highly

unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.”(internal citations omitted)).

II. DISCUSSION

The thrust of Shahbazi’s motion is that the Court erred in concluding that his failure to

pay litigation costs as ordered by the Monterey Superior Court was a valid reason for Equilon to

terminate the Lease. Shahbazi argues that: (1) he would have been able to make the required

payment if not for Equilon’s actions; (2) termination of the lease on this basis was pretexual; (3)

because the Monterey Superior Court’s order was entered more than 120 days prior to the

termination notice, it was not a valid basis for termination under the Petroleum Marketing

Practices Act (“PMPA”). None of these arguments meets the requirements of Civil Local Rule

7-9. 

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 263 Filed 10/01/07 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

 In his reply brief, Shahbazi alleges that “[w]hat Equilon really wants I [sic] ‘to starve 3

Shahbazi to death,’ to ruin his livelihood, simply because Shahbazi stands for his rights.” Reply

at ¶ 3. Throughout this action, the Court has been respectful of Shahbazi’s willingness to make

personal sacrifices in support of his beliefs. In light of Shahbazi’s pro se status, the Court has

given Shahbazi considerable leeway in presenting his arguments while holding counsel for

Equilon to a high standard of legal practice. However, the Court cannot simply ignore the legal

realities of this or any other case.

 Citing Chevron v. Finn, 851 F.2d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 1999), Equilon also argues that 4

the notice was timely because where failure to pay money is the “event” serving as the basis of

termination, each refusal by the franchisee to pay a past due amount in the face of the

franchisor’s attempts is an “event,” constituting an “ongoing violation of the franchise

agreement.” Response at 3-4. In light of its disposition of the instant motion the Court need not

3

Case No. C05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(JFLC1)

The first two arguments were considered and rejected by the Court in its order of August

30, 2007. Shahbazi has not offered any new facts or legal arguments that would warrant

reconsideration. For instance, Shahbazi’s claim that Equilon interfered with potential sales of his

gasoline or the station were raised in his August 3, 2007 Letter Brief (“Aug. 3 L.B.”), as was his

price discrimination argument. Aug. 3 L.B. at 6-7. Similarly, Shahbazi’s conclusory statements

that the termination notices were “in bad faith and pretexual” have been made before. Id. While

Shahbazi’s precise characterization of the alleged pretext may have shifted slightly, he does not 3

offer any new evidence in support of his claim.

While Shahbazi’s third argument was not asserted previously, it too fails to meet the

requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9. Reconsideration may be granted based upon a material

difference in fact or law only if the party seeking reconsideration can show that “in the exercise

of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at

the time of the interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1). Shahbazi’s argument that the notice of

termination was not timely under the PMPA clearly could have been asserted in the briefing on

Equilon’s motion for summary judgment, as to which briefing Shahbazi sought and was granted,

over Equilon’s strenuous objection, an extension of time. Shahbazi’s assertion that “when

Shahbazi offered his eight and subsequently his two page letter brief, he . . . was [not] aware of

the 120 days,” Reply at ¶ 4, is immaterial. Rule 7-9 allows for reconsideration where despite

diligence a party was unaware of a fact, not of law. 

4

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 263 Filed 10/01/07 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 address this point. 

4

Case No. C05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(JFLC1)

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED: October 1, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 263 Filed 10/01/07 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

Case No. C05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Colin C. West colin.west@bingham.com 

 

James Severson james.severson@bingham.com 

 

Erica Brand Portnoy erica.brand@bingham.com 

 

Kristen A. Palumbo kristen.palumbo@bingham.com 

 

Mehdi Shahbazi

3030 Del Monte Blvd.

Marina, CA 93933

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 263 Filed 10/01/07 Page 5 of 5