Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC,

Plaintiff and Counter Defendant,

CASE NO. 12CV665 JLS (KSC)

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED

ANSWER TO FIFTH AMENDED

COMPLAINT; (2) DENYING AS

MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE

PORTIONS OF AMENDED

SUPPLEMENTAL FOURTH

AMENDED ANSWER; (3)

GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS; (4) GRANTING

APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT; AND, (5)

DECLINING TO IMPOSE

SANCTIONS

(ECF Nos. 280, 282, 283, and 309)

vs.

CROSSROAD PETROLEUM, INC.,

ET AL.,

Defendants and Counter Claimants. 

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED

ACTIONS

Presently before the Court are the Named Guarantors and Dealer Defendants’

Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer to Fifth Amended Complaint, (ECF No.

309), Plaintiff BP West Coast Products, LLC’s (“BPWCP”) Motion to Strike

Portions of Named Guarantors and Dealer Defendants’ Amended Supplemental

Fourth Amended Answer [Fed R. Civ. P. 12(F)] and Request for Sanctions, (ECF

No. 282), BPWCP’s Motion to Dismiss and Request for Sanctions, (ECF No. 280),

- 1 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
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

and BPWCP’s Application for Default Judgment as Against Defendants Cohen’s

Gasoline, Inc., Matt Cohen, and Jennifer Cohen. (ECF No. 283.) Having reviewed

the parties’ arguments the law, the Court: 

(1) GRANTS the Dealer Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended 

answer,

(2) DENIES AS MOOT BPWCP’s motion to strike portions of the Dealer 

Defendants’ superseded pleading, 

(3) GRANTS BPWCP’s unopposed motion to dismiss Defendant 

Ambartsumyan Corporation’s (“Ambartsumyan”) counterclaims, 

(4) GRANTS BPWCP’s application for default judgment, and

(5) DECLINES to impose sanctions on parties or counsel at this time. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

The Dealer Defendants move for leave to file an amended answer to

BPWCP’s Fifth Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 309.) BPWCP filed a notice with

the Court indicating that it does not oppose the Dealer Defendants’ motion. (ECF

No. 311.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion. The Clerk of the Court

shall file the amended pleading, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Dealer

Defendants’ motion, as a separate entry on the docket. 

In light of the Dealer Defendants’ filing of an amended answer, BPWCP’s

motion to strike portions of the Dealer Defendants’ prior pleading is MOOT. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES BPWCP’s motion. (ECF No. 280.) 

MOTION TO DISMISS

BPWCP moves to dismiss Ambartsumyan’s counterclaims. (ECF No. 282.) 

Ambartsumyan filed no opposition to BPWCP’s motion. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS BPWCP’s motion to dismiss. See CivLR 7.1(f)(3)(c). In light of the

pleading defects identified in the motion, the dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE.

///

///

- 2 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
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 FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits a court to enter default judgment

“[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed

to plead or otherwise defend.” Although default judgments are ordinarily

disfavored, a court may grant or deny default judgment at its discretion. See Alan

Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Haw.

Carpenters’ Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 511–12 (9th Cir. 1986); Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,

1092 (9th Cir. 1980)). The Ninth Circuit has set out seven factors for a court to

consider when exercising this discretion:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a

dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471–72. 

When weighing these factors, the well-pleaded factual allegations of the

complaint are taken as true, except for those allegations relating to damages. 

TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). To prove damages, a plaintiff may submit declarations or

the Court may hold an evidentiary hearing. See Affinity Grp., Inc. v. Balser Wealth

Mgmt., No. 05cv1555, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26331, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10,

2007); Taylor Made Golf Co. v. Carsten Sports, 175 F.R.D. 658, 661 (S.D. Cal.

1997) (“In assessing damages, the court must review facts of record, requesting

more information if necessary, to establish the amount to which plaintiff is lawfully

entitled upon judgment by default.”).

2. Analysis

BPWCP moves for default judgment against Defendants Cohen’s Gasoline,

Inc., Matt Cohen, and Jennifer Cohen (“the Cohen Defendants”). The Court finds

- 3 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
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

that, in light of the facts of this case, BPWCP’s application for default judgment

must be GRANTED. Reviewing the Eitel factors, all favor BPWCP. Because the

Cohen Defendants have refused to participate in this lawsuit, no possibility of

dispute concerning material facts has been presented. Moreover, there is little

possibility of dispute because the Court takes all factual allegations in the complaint

as true based on the entry of default. See TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826

F.2d 915, 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 

There is little or no evidence that the Cohen Defendants’ default is due to

excusable neglect. They were served with process as early as September 7, 2012,

but have made no effort to appear in this suit. (See Mot. for Default J. 1, ECF No.

283-1.) 

Denial of this motion would result in prejudice to BPWCP because they

would be unable to obtain the declaratory relief and damages that they seek in any

other forum. BPWCP seeks $294,890.78 in damages, a very large sum. Although

the significant amount of damages sought would typically weigh against entry of

default judgment, BPWCP’s request for damages is supported by evidence. (See

Mot. for Default J., Ex. C., ECF No. 283-3.) Also, the fact that the Cohen

Defendants refuse to participate in the judicial process renders a decision on the

merits virtually impossible. Thus, despite the policy favoring decisions on the

merits, these Eitel factors all weigh in favor of entering default judgment against the

Cohen Defendants.

The remaining Eitel factors are the second and third factors—the merits of the

substantive claim and the sufficiency of the complaint—both of which also favor

entry of default judgment. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471. BPWCP brings claims against

the Cohen Defendants for declaratory relief under the PMPA, as well as for damages

for breach of franchise and guaranty agreements. BPWCP alleges that it is entitled

to a declaratory judgment that its termination and non-renewal of the Cohen

Defendants’ franchise comported with the notice and other requirements of the

- 4 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
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

PMPA. (Mot. for Default J. 5, ECF No. 283-1.) BPWCP also alleges that the

Cohen Defendants accepted delivery of $254,360.33 worth of gasoline, but failed to

pay for it, that they owe $3,952.83 in unpaid rent, and that their premature

abandonment of their station left it in a state of disrepair such that BPWCP had to

expend a total of $49,077.62 to “remove trash, to ensure air permit renewals, for

annual emissions fees, and for various maintenance issues.” (Id. at 5–6.) These

allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to establish BPWCP’s claims under the

PMPA and the franchise and guaranty agreements. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and HEREBY

ORDERS as follows: 

(1) That BPWCP is entitled to declaratory judgment, and declaratory 

judgment is hereby entered, against defendant Cohen's Gasoline, Inc. 

on the First Claim for Declaratory Relief Under the PMPA, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 2801 et seq. holding:

a. The relationship between defendant Cohen’s Gasoline, Inc. and 

BPWCP was that of a franchise relationship as defined and 

provided by Section 2801 of the PMPA;

b. Under the PMPA, BPWCP lawfully terminated defendant 

Cohen’s Gasoline, Inc.’s franchise and franchise relationship 

with BPWCP based upon the expiration of the underlying Site 

Lease (as defined in the Complaint);

c. Under the terms of the franchise agreement between 

BPWCP and Cohen’s Gasoline, Inc., BPWCP lawfully 

terminated the franchise and franchise relationship based upon 

the expiration of the underlying Site Lease (as defined in the 

Complaint)

d. The Termination Notice sent to Cohen's Gasoline, Inc. was 

reasonable and appropriate under 15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2)(C) (the 

- 5 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
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

occurrence of an event which is relevant to the franchise 

relationship and as a result of which termination of the franchise 

is reasonable) and Section 2802(c)(4) (loss of the franchisor's 

right to grant possession of the leased marketing premises 

through expiration of an underlying lease);

e. BPWCP did not hold any option to extend the underlying Site 

Lease or option to purchase the Premises at the time BPWCP 

provided Notice of Nonrenewal/Termination to the Cohen’s 

Gasoline, Inc.; 

f. The extension option provided for in the Master Lease (as 

defined in the Complaint) was impractical and impossible for 

BPWCP to exercise given that in order to exercise any of its 

extension options under the Master Lease, BPWCP was required 

to exercise the extension options in all Site Leases; and 

g. BPWCP was not required to offer to assign to Cohen’s Gasoline, 

Inc. its option to extend the underlying Site Lease or option to 

purchase the Premises under 28 U.S.C. § 2802(c)(4)(B).

(2) That BPWCP is entitled to judgment to be entered, and judgment is 

hereby entered, against Cohen's Gasoline, Inc. and in favor of 

BPWCP on the Third Claim for Breach of Franchise Agreements and 

awarding BPWCP damages, and entering judgment, in the total amount 

of $294,890.78. Furthermore, that BPWCP is entitled to post-judgment

Interest on the above-referenced amount as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 

1961. 

(3) That BPWCP is entitled to judgment to be entered, and judgment is 

hereby entered, against defendants Matt Cohen and Jennifer Cohen, 

jointly and severally, and in favor of BPWCP on the Fifth Claim for 

Breach of Guaranty Agreements and awarding BPWCP damages, and 

- 6 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
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

entering judgment, in the total amount of $294,890.78. Furthermore, 

that BPWCP is entitled to post-judgment interest on the 

above-referenced amount as permitted by 28 U.S.C. S 1961.

(4) That the foregoing judgment against Matt Cohen and Jennifer Cohen is 

joint and several with the foregoing judgment against Cohen's 

Gasoline, Inc. but in no event shall the recovery against any one or 

more of the Cohen Defendants exceed an aggregate principal amount 

of $294,890.78.

(5) That BPWCP has voluntarily dismissed the Eighth Claim for Relief for 

Conversion as against Cohen's Gasoline, Matt Cohen, and Jennifer 

Cohen.

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

BPWCP moves for the Court to impose sanctions on Dealer Defendants and

their counsel for the filing of the non-operative “Amended Supplemental Fourth

Amended Answer.” (ECF No. 282.) BPWCP also moves for the Court to impose

sanctions on Ambartsumyan and its counsel for the filing of defective counterclaims. 

(ECF No. 280.) 

A court may sanction a party that “unreasonably and vexatiously” multiplies

proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. “To warrant sanctions . . . a court must find the

attorney acted with recklessness or subjective bad faith.” New Alaska Dev. Corp. v.

Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989). A party acts in bad faith when he

“knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument, or argues a meritorious claim .

. . [to harass] an opponent.” Estate of Blas v. Winkler, 792 F.2d 858, 860 (9th Cir.

1986). The Court reserves “sanctions . . . for the ‘rare and exceptional case where’”

the party commences a “clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable [action] without legal

foundation” or “for an improper purpose.” Primus Auto Fin. Servs. v. Batarse, 115

F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Operating Eng’rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co.,

859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988)).

- 7 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
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

Without undertaking an exhaustive analysis, the Court, in its discretion,

declines to impose sanctions on parties or counsel at this time. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Dealer Defendants’

motion to file an amended answer, (ECF No. 309), DENIES AS MOOT BPWCP’s

motion to strike portions of the Dealer Defendants’ prior pleading, (ECF No. 280),

GRANTS BPWCP’s motion to dismiss Ambartsumyan’s counterclaims, (ECF No.

282), GRANTS BPWCP’s application for default judgment against the Cohen

Defendants, (ECF No. 283), and DECLINES to impose sanctions on parties or

counsel at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 22, 2014

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

 

- 8 - 12cv665

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 313 Filed 08/22/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8