Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

---

1

12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BP West Coast Products LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Crossroad Petroleum, Inc. et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

ORDER FOR MONETARY 

SANCTIONS

[ECF No. 631]

This matter is before the Court on a pending Order to Show Cause for failure to 

comply with Section II.C. of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules 

and certain of this Court’s orders, all of which require all parties to appear in person at 

mandatory settlement conferences. (ECF No. 631.) After careful review of the record, the 

facts, and the applicable law, the Court hereby ORDERS that monetary sanctions be paid 

by the following four defendants for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement 

Conference held on October 18 and 19, 2016: (1) NP Petroleum Corp.; (2) Payam Sahih; 

(3) William Kirmiz; and (4) Sahar Kirmiz.

1

 

1 By separate order, this Court recommends terminating sanctions against the other defendants identified 

in the pending Order to Show Cause who also failed to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference 

held on October 18 and 19, 2016–Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and 

Parshotam S. Kamboj. (ECF Nos. 627; 628; 631.) This order is limited to the defendants against whom 

monetary sanctions are appropriate–Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and 

Sahar Kirmiz.

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 687 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

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

BACKGROUND

As pled in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint, Defendant NP Petroleum Corp. 

was the operator and franchisee of the gasoline service station located at 14114 Vanowen 

St., Van Nuys, California 91405 (Facility No. 9633); Defendant Payam Sahih (along with 

Defendant Nader Sahih) executed a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally 

guaranteeing the obligations of Defendant NP Petroleum Corp. with respect to its Franchise 

Agreements with Plaintiff; and Defendants William Kirmiz and Sahar Kirmiz executed 

a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally guaranteeing the obligations of Defendant 

Parshotam S. Kamboj with respect to his Franchise Agreement with BPWCP. (ECF No. 

296-3 at ¶¶42, 57, 58.)

District Judge Sammartino’s December 14, 2015 and May 2, 2016 orders recount 

the “repeated discovery misconduct” of Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, 

William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz, which resulted in the district court granting in part 

Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions.2 (ECF Nos. 478; 498.) These defendants were among 

the defendants referred to as “Motion 3 Defendants” who violated multiple court orders, 

including a May 19, 2015, order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 

404); a May 28, 2015, order granting in part another of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, (ECF 

No. 411); a June 2, 2015, order granting yet another of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, (ECF 

No. 421); and/or a July 7, 2015, Minute Order directing the parties to meet and confer 

regarding the Motion 3 Defendants’ non-compliance with the Court’s discovery orders, 

(ECF No. 436).3 (ECF Nos. 448-11; 478 at 3.) The district court explicitly warned these 

 

2

In addition to its attorneys’ fees and costs, in its motions, Plaintiff sought the terminating sanction of 

default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on its Fifth Amended Complaint and dismissal of any counterclaims. 

(ECF Nos. 446; 447; 448.) The district court granted Plaintiff’s request for its attorneys’ fees and costs, 

but denied Plaintiff’s request for default and dismissal against Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam 

Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz (among others). (ECF No. 478.)

3 The district court labeled groups of defendants as Motion 1, Motion 2, and Motion 3 Defendants to 

correspond with three motions for sanctions filed by Plaintiff against three groups of defendants based on 

common sets of facts. As Judge Sammartino explained, “the alleged misconduct gets less severe with 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 687 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

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

defendants that failure to comply with discovery orders would result in terminating 

sanctions. (ECF No. 478 at 16-17 (“the Court hereby GIVES NOTICE . . . that further 

failure to comply with discovery orders or to meaningfully participate in discovery, even 

absent an order to compel, SHALL result in entry of default judgment against them and 

dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b)”).)

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt held the first mandatory settlement conference 

involving these defendants on June 8, 2016. Although many defendants failed to appear 

or arrived more than an hour late, Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William 

Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz all attended the June 8, 2016 mandatory settlement conference, 

and thus, were not among the absent or late defendants. 4(ECF Nos. 548; 550.) 

Subsequently, this Court held another mandatory settlement conference on October 

18 and October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 627; 628.) Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam 

Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz (among others) failed to appear. (Id.) 

Accordingly, on October 21, 2016, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause in this case 

instructing Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar 

Kirmiz that “on or before November 4, 2016,” they “SHALL each file a separate sworn 

declaration informing the Court why they did not comply with Section II.C. of Magistrate 

Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules and this Court’s this Court’s orders.” (ECF 

No. 631 (emphasis in original).) Defendants never filed a declaration (or any written 

response) as required by the Court’s October 21, 2016 Order to Show Cause. (See ECF 

No. 675.) Thus, this Court took the matter under submission without oral argument. (Id.)5

 

each motion, so that Motion 1 sets forth the most serious episodes of misconduct whereas Motion 3 details 

the least serious.” (ECF No. 478 at 2.)

4 Thirty-six defendants were ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue against them because 

they either failed to appear or were more than an hour late to the mandatory settlement conference held 

on June 8, 2016. (See ECF Nos. 531; 532.) Of those thirty-six, twenty-eight received sanctions. (ECF 

No. 550.)

5 Defendants’ counsel was critically injured in an accident after Defendants’ November 4, 2016 deadline. 

(See ECF No. 657.) Due to counsel’s unavailability, the Court repeatedly continued its hearing on the 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 687 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

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

LEGAL STANDARD

“All federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their 

cases and courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders. . . . As a function 

of this power, courts can dismiss cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award attorney’s 

fees and assess fines.” Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964–65 (9th 

Cir. 2004). “Sanctions are an appropriate response to ‘willful disobedience of a court 

order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for 

oppressive reasons.’” Id. (citing Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001)); see 

also Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that a 

“determination that an order was disobeyed is entitled to considerable weight” because 

the judge issuing the order “is the best equipped to assess the circumstances of the noncompliance” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). “Failure of counsel or of any party

to comply . . . . with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court of 

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the 

court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of 

contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser 

sanctions.” CivLR 83.1.a.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz

failed to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 

18-19, 2016. They have not provided any explanations for their failures to appear, much 

less demonstrated that their failures to appear were for reasons outside their control. The 

Court concludes monetary sanctions should issue against Defendant NP Petroleum Corp.,

Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz as follows:

 

Order to Show Cause. (ECF Nos. 643; 658; 668.) However, having received no written response to the 

Court’s Order to Show Cause, this matter was deemed appropriate for decision without oral argument.

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 687 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

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. On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant NP Petroleum Corp. is 

ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to the Miscellaneous 

Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States 

Treasury and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its 

determination that $500.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered 

Defendant’s failure to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held 

on October 18-19, 2016, its prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 404; 411;

421; 436; 478; 498), and its failure to timely pay court-ordered monetary sanctions owed 

to Plaintiff (see ECF Nos. 576; 652).

2. On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant Payam Sahih is ORDERED 

to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to the Miscellaneous Fines, 

Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States Treasury

and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its determination 

that $500.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered Defendant’s failure to 

appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 18-19, 

2016, Defendant’s prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 411; 421; 436; 478; 

498), and Defendant’s failure to timely pay court-ordered monetary sanctions owed to 

Plaintiff (see ECF Nos. 576; 652).

3. On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant William Kirmiz is 

ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to the Miscellaneous 

Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States 

Treasury and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its 

determination that $400.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered 

Defendant’s failure to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held 

on October 18-19, 2016 and Defendant’s prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 

404; 411; 421; 436; 478; 498).

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 687 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

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. On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant Sahar Kirmiz is ORDERED 

to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to the Miscellaneous Fines, 

Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States Treasury

and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its determination 

that $400.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered Defendant’s failure to 

appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 18-19, 

2016 and Defendant’s prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 404; 411; 421; 

436; 478; 498).

Finally, the Court hereby GIVES NOTICE to all sanctioned Defendants that future

failure to comply with Court orders, including failure to comply with this Order, SHALL

result in a recommendation from this Court that judgment be entered against them and any 

of their counterclaims be dismissed.

Dated: October 13, 2017

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 687 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6