Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-19/pdf.json

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

---

1

12-CV-665 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 and Counter-Defendant,

v.

CROSSROAD PETROLEUM, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants and Counter-Claimants.

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 12-CV-665 JLS (JLB) Lead 

Case

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(ECF No. 688)

Presently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate 

Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, recommending the Court issue terminating sanctions against five 

Defendants in this matter, (ECF No. 688).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 699 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

12-CV-665 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

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.”).

Here, no party has filed an objection to Magistrate Burkhardt’s R&R, (see R&R 13 

(objections due by October 27, 2017).) However, counsel Pamela Lacey did file a 

“Declaration In Support of Opposition to Proposed Sanction Order Dated 10/13/17,” 

(“Lacey Decl.,” ECF No. 690). Although this declaration is not titled as requested by Judge 

Burkhardt, (see R&R 13 (“The document should be captioned ‘Objections to Report and 

Recommendation.’”)), the Court considers the Declaration.

ANALYSIS

Judge Burkhardt recommends issuing terminating sanctions against five Defendants: 

(1) Behzad Kianmahd; (2) Nader Sahih; (3) Rajesh Arora; (4) Basel Hassounch; and (5) 

Parshotam S. Kamboj. (R&R 1.) In the declaration, Ms. Lacey requests the Court not 

issue sanctions against Defendants William Kirmiz, Sahar Kirmiz,

1

and Basel Hassounch.

As to William Kirmiz and Sahar Kirmiz, Ms. Lacey declares these two Defendants 

“were excused from appearing at the October 18–19, 2016 mediation, because they had 

previously settled with BP in early September 2016.” (Lacey Decl. ¶ 3.) First, this is 

factually incorrect, as there is no order by the Court excusing these Defendants from the 

October 2016 MSC. In fact, these Defendants were ordered by name to appear on October 

19, 2016 at 11:45 a.m. (See ECF Nos. 597, 611). Second, the Kirmiz Defendants wear 

two hats in this litigation: they were named as individual Defendants as guarantors for both

S.M.O Oil’s Franchise Agreement and Mr. Kamboj’s Franchise Agreement. BP did reach 

 

1 William and Sahar Kirmiz are guarantors on Defendant Kamboj’s Franchise Agreement with BP West 

Coast Products LLC (“BPWCP”).

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 699 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

12-CV-665 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

a settlement on S.M.O. Oil’s Franchise Agreement, (see ECF No. 605), but that settlement 

did not dismiss Defendants William and Sahar Kirmiz from this case. As clearly stated in 

the stipulation, each Kirmiz Defendant stipulated to the dismissal “solely in his capacity as 

guarantor of S.M.O Oil, Inc.” (ECF No. 605, at 2.) Thus, the record is clear that William 

and Sahar Kirmiz remain as guarantor Defendants with respect to Mr. Kamboj’s Franchise 

Agreement. And if the Court dismisses Mr. Kamboj, this does not mean the Kirmiz 

Defendants are dismissed as well; the Kirmiz Defendants remain as named individual 

Defendants because they signed the lease agreement at issue guaranteeing 

performance/payment of the lease by Mr. Kamboj.

As to Basel Hassounch, Ms. Lacey stated Mr. Hassounch has settled this matter with

BPWCP. (Lacey Decl. ¶ 5.) Subsequently, BPWCP and Defendant and CounterClaimants Basel Hassounch & Rafael Castillo d/b/a BHRC Petro, Basel Hassounch (solely 

in his capacity as guarantor of Basel Hassounch & Rafael Castillo d/b/a BHRC Petro) and 

Rafael Castillo (solely in his capacity as guarantor of Basel Hassounch & Rafael Castillo 

d/b/a BHRC Petro) (“the BHRC PETRO parties”) stipulated to dismiss their claims against 

one another. (See ECF No. 695.) The Court granted the stipulation and the BHRC PETRO 

parties have been dismissed. (See ECF No. 696.)

After analyzing Ms. Lacey’s declaration and Judge Burkhardt’s R&R, the Court 

finds that the R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. The Court has 

generously given these Defendants multiple opportunities to comply with the Court orders 

and engage in litigation in this matter. The Court gave the Defendants a clear warning of 

dismissal. (ECF No. 649, at 11 (“[T]he Court GIVES NOTICE to all sanctioned 

Defendants that further failure to comply with Court orders or to meaningfully participate 

in discovery, even absent an order to compel, SHALL result in an entry of judgment 

against them and dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b).”).) Thus, the 

Court agrees dispositive sanctions are appropriate in this matter.

Given the recent dismissal of Defendant Hassounch, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation with respect to the four 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 699 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

12-CV-665 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

remaining Defendants; and (2) ENTERS JUDGMENT against Defendants (1) Behzad 

Kianmahd; (2) Nader Sahih; (3) Rajesh Arora; and (4) Parshotam S. Kamboj and 

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE any counterclaims asserted by these Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2017

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 699 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4