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

1

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

Case No. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

** E-filed 4/24/07 **

NOT FOR CITATION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, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-05102 JF

ORDER1

 DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY

EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

[re. docket nos. 100, 102, 115, 137, 138] 

MEHDI SHAHBAZI, et al.,

Counter-Claimant

 v.

EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, a Delaware

Limited Liability Company dba Shell Oil Products;

US PENINSULA PETROLEUM LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through

20, Inclusive,

Counter-Defendants. 

On January 26, 2007, Plaintiff Equilon Enterprises, LLC (“Equilon”) filed two motions

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 149 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 Shahbazi also filed a supplemental response with the Court on March 16, 2007. That

document includes a brief history of the case, concerns about oil pricing generally, and

Shahbazi’s descriptions of his attempts to seek outside counsel. It does not adhere to the

requirements of Rule 56(f) and was submitted after the deadline. However, in the interests of

justice, the Court has considered this document. It does not alter the Court’s analysis. 

3

 Shahbazi also notes that he is attempting to obtain legal assistance from “some of the

well-known law-firm [sic] in the country.” Motion 2. Shahbazi attaches the template letter that

he allegedly sent to numerous law firms in the country. The letter is dated November 9, 2006. 

Ex. 5. The Court has granted considerable time in which to obtain legal counsel, but Shahbazi

has been unable to do so. The Rule 56(f) motion cannot be granted on this ground.

2

Case No. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

for partial summary judgment, (1) as to counts I, II, and VII of the first amended complaint and

(2) as to counts III, IV, V, and VI of the first amended complaint and Shahbazi’s counterclaims

and affirmative defenses. On February 12, 2007, Defendant Mehdi Shahbazi (“Shahbazi”) filed

the instant motion (“the motion”) for an extension of time to oppose the motions for partial

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(f). Shahbazi sought an extension of ninety days. 

Equilon opposed the motion. On February 27, 2007, the Court ordered Shahbazi to provide

additional information required by Rule 56(f) on or before March 13, 2007. Shahbazi filed a

timely response (“supplemental motion”),2

 and Equilon replied on March 23, 2007. 

As the Court specifically advised Shahbazi at the January 26, 2007 case management

conference, a Rule 56(f) motion requires an affidavit outlining the specific facts that Shahbazi

hopes to obtain through discovery. A party seeking relief under Rule 56(f) must show (1) that he

has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts he hopes to elicit from further discovery, (2) that

the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are “essential” to resist the summary

judgment motion. California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138

F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Even taken together, Shahbazi’s motion and supplemental motion

still fail to meet these requirements. 

Shahbazi seeks an extension on the basis that additional time for discovery would allow

him to ascertain four different types of information.3 First, Shahbazi asserts that “there are facts

that exist that Shell/Equilon did not act as franchisor for Shahbazi the Marina and Salinas

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 149 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 6
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

 Shahbazi filed a complaint against Equilon and other related parties in Monterey

Superior Court for multiple claims including price discrimination. The trial court granted

defendants' motions for summary judgment on January 20, 2005.

3

Case No. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

stations [sic] and that Shell refused to allow Shahbazi to sell his station in Salinas on at least four

different occasions. Shahbazi believes these facts exist and are discoverable and are essential to

Shahbazi’s defense.” Supplemental Motion 2. He also states that both Mr. Burrow and Mr.

Maday (Equilon’s general manager and sales manager, respectively) were informed that the

Salinas station had a probable buyer in escrow. Supplemental Motion 3. These facts are not

essential to resist the partial summary judgment motions, however, because Shahbazi already

asserted the same affirmative defense unsuccessfully in the related case, Equilon v. Singh, et al.,

06-05818 (“Singh”). Although the instant case involves the Marina station and Singh involved a

station in Salinas, the factual allegations with respect to the conduct of Burrow and Maday are

the same in both cases. Collateral estoppel applies when it is established that: (1) the issue

necessarily decided during the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be

relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party

against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first

proceeding. Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000). The prior

litigation ended with a final judgment on the merits, and Shahbazi was a party to that litigation. 

Accordingly, Shahbazi may not request additional time for discovery related to a renewed effort

to establish Equilon’s alleged bad faith.

Second, Shahbazi asserts that facts exist that would prove that Peninsula, acting in bad

faith, raised its prices by up to eight cents per gallon in order to “bring economic termination

upon Shahbazi” once the superior court in Monterey County4

 ruled on a summary judgment in

favor of Shell and Peninsula. Supplemental Motion 2. However, Shahbazi never explains how

these facts are discoverable. Furthermore, this bad faith allegation pertains not to Equilon but to

Peninsula, which is not a party in this case. Shahbazi already has litigated (unsuccessfully) a

case regarding the alleged bad faith price discrimination in state court. Ex. A at 14-15 and Ex. D

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 149 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

at 14. Accordingly, additional time for discovery is not warranted on this basis. 

Third, Shahbazi asserts that Peninsula violated his First Amendment rights when it sent

him cease and desist letters attempting to prevent him from handing out flyers to his Marina

station’s customers. Supplemental Motion 3. Shahbazi also asserts that Peninsula terminated its

sales agreement at the Marina station as of November 24, 2005, and that Shell terminated the

Marina lease on November 24, 2005. Shahbazi does not explain how these facts are essential to

his opposition to the instant motions for partial summary judgment. As mentioned above,

Peninsula is not a party in this case. 

Finally, Shahbazi claims that various Shell employees, as well as Shell’s legal counsel,

ignored his requests to allow local distributors to supply the Marina station with Shell-branded

fuel. Supplemental Motion 3-4. He describes how he asked other Shell suppliers to supply his

Marina station with Shell fuel, and alleges that on December 5, 2005, Toro Petroleum and

Monterey County Petroleum agreed to supply Marina Shell with fuel. Id. at 3. Shahbazi asserts

that documents proving these facts exist, and that they are essential to his defense that Equilon

acted in bad faith, and retaliated against Shahbazi because of Shahbazi’s superior court case and

gas station protests. Equilon correctly points out that Shahbazi raised the identical affirmative

defense in Singh. West. Decl., Ex. C at 2, 15. While Shahbazi claims there are documents

available illustrating Equilon’s bad faith with respect to the Marina station in particular, he does

not describe the documents or explain how they might be discoverable. 

In light of Shahbazi’s failure, despite repeated, specific directions from the Court, to

identify the documents in question or to explain how such documents would support his

opposition to the partial summary judgment motions (particularly in light of the previous adverse

decision in Singh and in the Monterey County action), denial of the Rule 56(f) motion is proper. 

Accordingly, plaintiff's Rule 56(f) request for leave to take additional discovery will be

DENIED. The briefing schedule shall be reset as follows: Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s

motions for partial summary judgment shall be filed on or before June 8, 2007; Plaintiff’s reply

shall be filed on or before June 15, 2007; and the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion shall take place at

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 149 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 6
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. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

9:00 a.m. on June 29, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 149 Filed 04/24/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Case No. C 05-05102 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NINETY DAY EXTENSION TO OPPOSE MOTIONS

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Kristen Palumbo kristen.palumbo@bingham.com

James Severson james.severson@bingham.com 

Colin C. West colin.west@bingham.com 

Mehdi Shahbazi

3030 Del Monte Blvd.

Marina, CA 93933

Balwinder Singh 

3030 Del Monte Blvd.

Marina, Ca 93933 

Case 5:05-cv-05102-JF Document 149 Filed 04/24/07 Page 6 of 6