Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-7/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

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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 and Counter-Defendant,

v.

CROSSROAD PETROLEUM, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants and Counter-Claimants.

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 

JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 

12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

ORDER APPROVING SANCTIONS

(ECF No. 478, 479, 483)

Presently before the Court are the Declaration of Abby L. Risner in Support of 

Request for Fees and Costs for Motions for Sanctions, (ECF No. 479-1), and the 

Declaration of Deborah Yoon Jones in Support of Request for Fees and Costs for Motions 

for Sanctions, (ECF No. 479-2). Also before the Court is the Objection to Declarations on 

Exhibits for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by the defendants and counter-plaintiffs 

represented by attorneys David Schiller and Pamela Lacey. (ECF No. 483.)

BACKGROUND

In December 2015 the Court, in response to motions filed by BP, imposed monetary 

sanctions on three groups of defendants/counter-claimants due to repeated discovery 

misconduct. (See Sanctions Order, ECF No. 478.) The Court labeled BP’s motions Motion 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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, (ECF No. 446-1), Motion 2, (ECF No. 447-1), and Motion 3, (ECF No. 448-1), and the 

defendants against whom BP sought sanctions in the respective motions the Motion 1 

Defendants, Motion 2 Defendants, and Motion 3 Defendants. (Sanctions Order at 2–5.) 

The Defendants in those categories are:

 Motion 1 Defendants: Southland Petroleum, MK Oil, and Pacific Expotech.

 Motion 2 Defendants: Chase Products, David Parker, Parshotam Kamboj, Cal 

Coast, Vasaya Oil, and Sharina Alloush.

 Motion 3 Defendants1: 2 United Oil, LLC; 3 Star Management, Inc.; Kurian 

Abraham; Habib Alam; Manal Alam; Sharina Alloush; Anita Alvandi; Francois 

Alvandi; Natalie Alvandi; Robert Alvandi; Fazilath Ansari; Khaja Ansari; Rajesh 

Arora; Awans Enterprises, Inc.; Heidi Bahmani; Mohammad Bahmani; Bahman 

Baktar; Nesrin Barbat; Salman D. Barbat; Paul Baskaron; Battir Oil Inc.; Younes 

Dobli Bennani; Big Daddy’s Oil 14, Inc.; Big Daddy’s Oil 15, Inc.; Denise M. 

Brown; Cal Coast Inc.; California Fuel Dispensing Inc.; Rafael Castillo; Chase

Products, Inc.; Crestview Consolidated, Inc.; Daisie Enterprises Inc.; Issa T. 

Demes; Dream Petroleum, Inc.; Ghallab Brothers Inc.; Ibrahim Ghallab; Maret 

Golnazarian; Razmik Golnazarian; H & O, Inc.; Hadaf Inc.; Sylvia Haddadin;

Hamlet Enterprizes, Inc.; Basel Hassounch; HRMP Corp.; Kulwant Singh Jafal; 

Rafwant Jafal; K & T Park 79, Inc.; Parshotam Kamboj; Mohammad Kaskas; 

Tahssen Kaskas; Omer Kassa; Bahman Kianmahd; Behzad Kianmahd; Sahar 

Kirmiz; William Kirmiz; Kalur Kishan; Ammar Maaytah; Randa Maaytah; Tarun 

Maitra; Salah Mazloum; MDA Fuel Inc.; Ani Mirzaian; MK Oil Inc./Kaskas 

Enterprises Inc.; Monteagudo Enterprises, Inc.; Liliana Monteagudo; Senan 

Naoum; Anit Natt; Gagan Natt; NP Petroleum Corp.; NRRM Corp.; Pacific 

Expotech Petro Mart, Inc.; David Parker; Anup Patel; PB, Inc.; Perfect Fuel, Inc.; 

Tigran Pogosyan; Soma Prasad; Muna Quasqas; Rahgozar, Inc.; Mostafa 

Rahgozar; Rasna, LLC; RP Oil, Inc.; Ruchisys, Inc.; Nader Sahih; Payam Sahih; 

Hy E. Sao; Meng E. Sao; Himanshu Sarvaiya; Sonal Shah; Yogesh Shah; Aly 

Shakankiry; Shamaah, Inc.; Claude Shamaah; Ruchira Sharma; Susan Shen Chin; 

Hamza Shilleh; Shomers Group, LLC; Vache Simonyan; SMO Oil, Inc.; South 

West Petroleum, LLC; Southland Petroleum, Inc.; Taftan, Inc.; Kevin Tapia; 

Tracy Tapia; Seyed Majid Tavabi; Sheela Thomas; Brittany Torres; United 

 

1 The Motion 3 Defendants are all those represented by attorney David Schiller, and include the subgroups of Motion 1 Defendants and Motion 2 Defendants. BP demonstrated more egregious discovery 

misconduct on the part of the Motion 1 and Motion 2 Defendants, and therefore brought separate motions 

as to those groups. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

Family, LLC; Vasaya Oil Co., Inc.; Kotsai Wang; Ara Wansikehian; West Coast 

Petroleum Services; Westminster Mini Market, Inc.; Jerry Zomorodian; Rebecca 

Zomorodian; Marie Zorenkelian; and Toros Zorenkelian.

The Court awarded the following monetary sanctions: 

 Against the Motion 1 Defendants: reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated 

with the Motion 1 Defendants’ missed depositions, noncompliance with 

discovery orders, and litigating Motion 1. All of the Motion 1 Defendants are

individually liable for expenses associated with their own discovery misconduct 

and are jointly and severally liable for the cost incurred in litigating Motion 1. 

 Against the Motion 2 Defendants: reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated 

with the Motion 2 Defendants’ missed depositions, noncompliance with 

discovery orders, and litigating Motion 2. All of the Motion 2 Defendants are

individually liable for expenses associated with their own discovery misconduct 

and are jointly and severally liable for the cost incurred in litigating Motion 2. 

 Against the Motion 3 Defendants: reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated 

with litigating Motion 3. The Motion 3 Defendants are jointly and severally 

liable for these expenses. 

The Court directed BP to submit documentation detailing the expenses associated 

with each monetary sanction award, including invoices and affidavits, and the defendants 

to submit their objections two weeks later. (Sanctions Order at 18.) Because the work on 

BP’s three sanctions motions largely overlapped, BP apportioned expenses generally 

associated with the three motions equally among the 116 Motion 3 Defendants, counting 

the Motion 1 and Motion 2 Defendants—each of whom was also a Motion 3 Defendant—

only once for purposes of apportioning the expenses associated with Motion 3. (Risner 

Decl., ECF No. 479-1, at 10 n.5.)2 Where expenses were associated specifically with 

Motion 1 or Motion 2, they were allocated among those specific sub-groups of defendants. 

(Id.) In its expense documentation, BP identified the following fees and costs:

 

2 Pinpoint citations to docketed materials refer to the CM/ECF page number electronically stamped at the 

top of each page. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

Motion 1 Defendants:

 Southland Petroleum: $3,058.59 (fees) and $966.34 (costs)

 MK Oil: $3,391.09 (fees) and $848.94 (costs)

 Pacific Expotech: $4,179.49 (fees) and $898.65 (costs)

 Jointly and severally for Motion 1: $3,525.00 (fees)

Motion 2 Defendants:

 Chase Products: $1,961.87 (fees) and $160.20 (costs)

 David Parker: $263.37 (fees) and $160.20 (costs)

 Parshotam Kamboj: $3,458.37 (fees) and $1,007.99 (costs)

 Cal Coast: $809.37 (fees) and $326.25 (costs)

 Vasaya Oil: $3,882.12 (fees) and $1,425.38 (costs)

 Sharina Alloush: $3,832.13 (fees) and $0 (costs)

 Jointly and severally for Motion 2: $270.00 (fees)

Motion 3 Defendants:

 Jointly and severally for Motion 3: $51,105.00 (fees) and $2,688.10 (costs)

(Risner Decl., ECF No. 479-1, at 9–11.) 

ANALYSIS

I. Attorneys’ Fees

BP is represented by the law firm of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C. and local 

counsel Alston & Bird LLP. The professionals representing BP charge the following 

hourly rates:

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

Professional Position Graduation Year Hourly Rate

Abby Risner Officer 2005 $350

Juliane Rodriguez Associate 2012 $225

Deborah Yoon Jones Partner 1995 $390

Adriene Plescia Lynch Associate 2008 $350

Mary Illig Paralegal $175

(Id. at 3.)

Courts review the reasonableness of fees by comparing them “with those prevailing 

in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, 

experience and reputation.” Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (quoting Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008)). 

The community “is the forum in which the district court sits.” Id. After the party seeking 

fees presents evidence about the market, such as affidavits from attorneys, the opposing 

party has the “burden of rebuttal,” and may present its own evidence calling into question 

the accuracy and reasonableness of the facts asserted by the other party. Id. at 1110–11.

The defendants do not object to these billing rates or present any evidence rebutting 

their reasonableness. (See Objections, ECF No. 483.) In light of the nature of this complex 

litigation matter involving numerous parties and attendant logistical difficulties as well as 

complex substantive legal matters involving franchise disputes and the Petroleum 

Marketing Practices Act, the Court finds BP’s professionals’ rates reasonable. 

II. The Defendants’ Objections

Although they do not object to BP’s professionals’ billing rates, the defendants do 

object to several other matters. First, the defendants object to the lack of testimony stating 

that the fees were necessary. (Id. at 2–3.) In particular, defendants argue that attorney 

Deborah Yoon Jones’s declaration is deficient because it states that fees were “justified” 

but does not state that they were “necessary.” (Id. at 2.) Second, defendants object to the 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

declarations based on the lack of testimony that costs were necessary, quarreling in 

particular with charges for wireless internet in flights, room service charges at hotels, and 

alcoholic beverages with meals. (Id. at 3.) Defendants do not cite any authority indicating 

that the word “necessary,” as opposed to “justified,” must be included in an affidavit 

establishing sanction amounts.3 Nor do the defendants point to any particular line item to 

which they object. On the other hand, the Court has reviewed the itemized fees and costs 

associated with the discovery misconduct and litigating the sanctions motions and finds 

them reasonable. The defendants’ objections on these points are therefore OVERRULED. 

Third, the defendants object to the itemization of fees pertaining to Motion 3, taking 

issue with BP’s “fail[ure] to segregate out what fees it alleges were incurred for Motion 

No. 3.” (Id. at 3.) As BP states in a declaration, because the Motion 1 and Motion 2 

Defendants are also Motion 3 Defendants, BP “has allocated the time expended on 

litigating Motions 1 through 3 in this Motion 3 category.” (Risner Decl. at 10 n.5.) The 

legal substance of the three motions was largely the same, such that the motions were in 

many ways identical. The main differences were the discrete factual allegations pertaining 

to the different defendant groups’ conduct. Thus, BP’s method of allocating the costs for 

 

3

In fact, the defendants’ objection to Ms. Jones’s declaration is the only place in which the defendants 

cite any authority at all, and even the cases cited focus on California procedural statutes. See, e.g., Reveles

v. Toyota by the Bay, 57 Cal. App. 4th 1139, 1151 (1997) (considering California Code of Civil Procedure 

§ 1032); In re Marriage of Quinlan, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1417, 1422 (1989) (considering California Code of 

Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 4370, 4370.5). Sparse citation to legal authority has become a theme for many 

of the defendants’ briefs in this matter. (See, e.g., Named Guarantors/Dealer Defendants’ Amended 

Supplemental Response to BP’s Motions for Sanctions, ECF No. 475 (citing no legal authority in an 

eleven-page opposition); Named Guarantors/Dealer Defendants’ Response to BP’s Motions for Sanctions, 

ECF No. 465 (same).) In light of the pending motions for summary judgment in this matter, the Court 

reminds the defendants that they must support their arguments with legal authority. See United States v. 

Karl, 264 F. App’x 550, 553 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Failure to cite to valid legal authority waives a claim.”);

CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(b) (“The opposition must contain a . . . an answering memorandum of points and 

authorities.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues 

which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments 

for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim . . . ‘[j]udges are not like pigs, hunting for 

truffles buried in briefs.’”).

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

these motions, which involved sorting out fees associated particularly with Motion 1 or 

Motion 2 but otherwise aggregating the costs under Motion 3, is reasonable. Accordingly, 

the defendants’ objection to BP’s cost allocation method is OVERRULED. 

Fourth, the defendants object to the fees for Motion 1 and Motion 2 on the basis that 

they purportedly duplicate the fees for Motion 3. (Objections at 3–4.) Contrary to the 

defendants’ objections, however, BP carefully allocates and itemizes costs and fees on a 

defendant-by-defendant basis for expenses related to specific discovery misconduct and on 

a motion-by-motion basis for the expenses for which the various defendant groups are 

jointly and severally liable. (See, e.g., Risner Decl. at 26–29.) For example, an entry for 

August 8, 2015—which defendants specifically identify and summarily object to—

indicates that some work was done for both “Group 1” and “Group 3” over the course of 

2.4 hours for a billable total of $840.00. (Id. at 29.) Contrary to the defendants’ objection 

that BP fails “to segregate” the costs for various motions, the line item on the righthand 

column shows that BP apportioned only $420.00 of the $840.00 associated with that entry 

to Motion 1. (Id.) BP is similarly specific in the other entries to which defendants vaguely 

object, even allocating costs among those defendants in the sub-groups. (See, e.g., id. at 

27.) For example, BP’s counsel spent 1.5 hours on June 25, 2015, updating charts and 

analysis related to meet and confers with counsel for the defendants “on failure to comply 

with court orders.” (Id.) This amounted to $525.00 in billable time, for which BP allocated 

$4.53 to MK Oil, $4.53 to Pacific Expotech, $4.53 to Southland Petroleum—the Motion 1 

Defendants—and $4.53 to each of the Motion 2 Defendants. (See id. at 27, 33.) BP 

apportioned costs on a defendant-by-defendant basis for those defendants ordered to pay 

the costs and fees associated with their discovery misconduct. Thus, the Court finds that 

BP diligently allocated expenses to avoid billing for the same time or expenses twice, and 

properly allocated costs among the various defendants. The defendants’ objections on this 

point are therefore OVERRULED. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

Fifth, the defendants object to BP’s documentation on the basis that it includes 

charges for “preparing the underlying discovery.” (Objections at 4.) The defendants again

state this objection without pointing to any particular line item. The Court OVERRULES

this objection because—like many of its other objections—it is conclusory and does not 

sufficiently identify any particular expense. These objections presumably refer to those 

line items in which BP’s counsel reviewed particular defendants’ discovery misconduct, 

but that was necessary for purposes of preparing the sanctions motions, and was not simply 

preparing the underlying discovery. Those expenses are therefore appropriately included 

in these sanctions awards. 

Lastly, the defendants object to imposing costs and fees related to litigating the 

sanctions motions on each defendant group jointly and severally. (Objections at 4.) The 

defendants cite no authority to support this objection. Although the Court hesitates to do 

the defendants’ research for them, the Court concludes from its own review of similar cases 

and authority that, contrary to the defendants’ assertion, there is a basis in law and in fact 

for joint and several liability. See, e.g., United States v. Vernon, No. 4:09-CV-00038-LRS, 

2012 WL 5416565, at *2, *5 (D. Alaska May 16, 2012) (holding co-defendants who failed 

to respond to discovery requests jointly and severally liable for defendants’ “reasonable 

expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in bringing its motions to compel and for discovery 

sanctions”), aff’d, 485 F. App’x 892 (9th Cir. 2012); Allen v. Elgin, No. 2:04-CV-001-PS, 

2005 WL 4132537, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2005) (“The Court further RECOMMENDS 

that [thirteen plaintiffs] be jointly and severally liable for the reasonable expenses, 

including attorney fees, incurred by the Defendant in bringing the instant Motion for 

Sanctions.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2006 WL 1707262 (June 19, 2006).

Further, joint and several liability may be appropriate where the “conduct of two or 

more persons is a legal cause of an indivisible injury . . . .” See Restatement (Third) of 

Torts: Apportionment Liab. § 17 (2000). The Court imposed joint and several liability for 

costs and fees related to litigating these motions for sanctions. The injury is the time and 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

12cv665 JLS (JLB)

Lead Case

[Consolidated with Case Nos. 12cv886 JLS (JLB), 12cv887 JLS (JLB), and 12cv888 JLS (JLB)]

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

expense of litigating these motions, which were apparently necessary to prompt the 

defendants to get serious about complying with discovery rules and orders. Thus, as a 

result of each grouping of defendants’ conduct, a single harm—or motion—resulted. The 

Court is therefore persuaded that joint and several liability is appropriate. Accordingly, the 

defendants’ objection on this point is OVERRULED. Alternatively, the Court deems the 

defendants’ objection waived due to their failure to cite any authority to support their 

argument. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court approves sanctions against the following 

defendants in the following amounts: 

 The Motion 1 Defendants are individually liable to BP as follows: Southland 

Petroleum: $4,024.93; MK Oil: $4,240.03; and Pacific Expotech: $5,078.14. The 

Motion 1 Defendants are jointly and severally liable to BP for $3,525.00 for fees 

incurred litigating Motion 1. 

 The Motion 2 Defendants are individually liable to BP as follows: Chase 

Products: $2,122.07; David Parker: $423.57; Parshotam Kamboj: $4,466.36; Cal 

Coast: $1,135.62; Vasaya Oil: $5,307.50; and Sharina Alloush: $3,832.13. The 

Motion 2 Defendants are jointly and severally liable to BP for $270.00 for fees 

incurred litigating Motion 2.

 The Motion 3 Defendants are jointly and severally liable to BP for $53,793.10

for fees and costs incurred litigating Motion 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 498 Filed 05/02/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9