Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05818/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05818-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

Case No. C 06-05818 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

** Original Filed 4/4/07 **

NOT FOR CITATION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 06-05818 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT

[Docket No. 82]

On March 13, 2007, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff Equilon Enterprises, LLC

(“Equilon”) for summary judgment against Mehdi Shahbazi (“Shahbazi”), Balwinder Singh (also

known as Ben Pannu) (“Pannu”), and the Shahbazi-Pannu partnership doing business as Salinas

Shell (“the partnership”). The Court granted summary judgment for Equilon on the grounds that

the Lease was validly terminated under both the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”)

and the terms of the Lease itself because of (i) the partnership’s failure to pay rent, (ii) the

partnership’s failure to sell fuel for seven consecutive days, and (iii) Pannu’s withdrawal from

the partnership. The Court also found that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to

Shahbazi’s assertions that Equilon terminated the Lease for improper reasons or breached its

duty to act in good faith and within the course of business. On March 13, 2007, the Court

Case 5:06-cv-05818-JF Document 89 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 4
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. C 06-05818 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

entered judgment in favor of Equilon. On March 22, 2007, Shahbazi filed a motion to alter or

amend the order granting Equilon’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)”). Equilon opposes the motion. The Court concludes that

the matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

A motion for reconsideration of summary judgment may be brought pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, 5 F.3d

1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). The

decision whether to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the district

court and will be reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Multnomah, 5 F.3d at 1262.

Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) is appropriate if: (1) the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence; (2) the district court committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Id. at 1263. The

repetition of arguments which the district court already considered and rejected is not a proper

basis for reconsideration. Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442.

Shahbazi asserts that there are triable issues of fact regarding the circumstances

surrounding Equilon’s termination of the March 2006 Retail Facility Lease (“the Lease”) and its

alleged bad faith in its business relationship with Shahbazi. Motion 1. Shahbazi also asserts that

the issue of unpaid rent was pretextual and that under the PMPA Equilon may not terminate its

franchisee in bad faith. Motion 3. However, Shahbazi does not present any new evidence

suggesting that the Lease was terminated improperly or that Equilon breached its duty to act in

good faith and within the course of business. 

Shahbazi urges the Court to analyze its ruling in an earlier case, Shahbazi et al v. Equilon

Enterprises, LLC et al, CV 03-00212, in deciding this motion, arguing that the ruling establishes

that there are triable issues of fact and that Equilon has exercised bad faith in the present case. 

Motion 1. In the 2003 case, the Court granted judgment for Equilon, and that determination was

affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. West Decl. at Ex. A; West Decl. at Ex. H. Nothing in that case

provides a basis for granting the instant motion. Shahbazi also requests that the Court consider

the formal judgment entered in October 2003, but he offered no legal or factual basis for doing

Case 5:06-cv-05818-JF Document 89 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 06-05818 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

so.

The Court repeatedly has granted Shahbazi extensions of time to oppose Equilon’s efforts

to obtain relief, and in consideration of Shahbazi’s pro se status, has considered the arguments in

Shahbazi’s opposition papers with great liberality. There is nothing in the instant motion that

has not been presented to the Court previously in Shahbazi’s briefings and oral argument. 

Shahbazi fails to identify a decision by the Court that was manifestly unjust, and there has not

been an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2007

_______________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05818-JF Document 89 Filed 04/04/07 Page 3 of 4
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 06-05818 JF

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(JFEX1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Gary Ernest Gray mail@graybattey.com 

Rosanne L. Mah rosanne.mah@bingham.com 

James Severson james.severson@bingham.com 

Colin C. West colin.west@bingham.com 

Mehdi Shahbazi

3030 Del Monte Blvd.

Marina, CA 93933

Case 5:06-cv-05818-JF Document 89 Filed 04/04/07 Page 4 of 4