Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02222/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02222-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-03-2222 WBS PAN

Plaintiff, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

ORDER SHORTENING TIME

NEW WEST PETROLEUM L.P., NEW

WEST PETROLEUM, LLC, NEW WEST

PETROLEUM, NEW WEST STATIONS,

INC. and NEW WEST LLC

Defendants.

-----------------------------

NEW WEST PETROLEUM, L.P., NEW

WEST PETROLEUM, LLC, and NEW

WEST PETROLEUM,

Cross-Complainants

v.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a

New Jersey Corporation, and 

SARTAG SINGH BAINS,

Cross-Defendants

----oo0oo----

New West defendants filed an ex parte application on

May 25, 2005 for an order shortening time to hear New West’s

Case 2:03-cv-02222-WBS-EFB Document 191 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 3
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

motion to establish certain facts. New West contends that Exxon

has engaged in discovery misconduct by not producing witnesses or

requested documents. New West apparently believed when the ex

parte motion was filed that if certain facts were deemed

established, the motions for summary judgment already on the May

31, 2005 calendar would be affected. There were four motions for

summary judgment on the calendar for May 31, 2005, as well as

several nondispositive motions. Exxon’s counsel informed the

court by letter, after receiving notice that New West had filed

the ex parte application, that he would not be able to prepare

for New West’s motion to establish certain facts as he was then

in Boston on business. Thus, if the court had heard New West’s

motion to establish certain facts on May 31, 2005, Exxon would

have been materially prejudiced. The court did not hear the

motion on that date.

The only fact that New West presents in its ex parte

application as an example of a fact it seeks to have established

is that Exxon did not investigate the cause of the contamination

of the Property. The court finds that this fact, even if deemed

established, would have no effect on the currently pending

motions for summary judgment. Therefore, New West’s sense of

urgency is misplaced.

The motion for an order establishing certain facts will

be heard on the same date and at the same time as the pretrial

conference.

///

///

/// 

Case 2:03-cv-02222-WBS-EFB Document 191 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the New West entities file

any memorandum in support of their motion to establish certain

facts on or before June 13, 2005; that Exxon Mobil file any

opposition on or before June 20, 2005; and that New West file any

reply to Exxon’s opposition on or before June 27, 2005. 

Plaintiff and defendants are ordered to appear on July 5, 2005,

at 10:00 a.m. to argue the motion.

DATED: June 6, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-02222-WBS-EFB Document 191 Filed 06/07/05 Page 3 of 3