Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-17/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

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,

v.

Crossroad Petroleum, Inc. et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED 

ACTIONS

Case No.: 12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case

Report and Recommendation

[ECF No. 631]

This matter is before the Court on a pending Order to Show Cause for failure to 

comply with Section II.C. of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules 

and certain of this Court’s orders, all of which require all parties to appear in person at 

mandatory settlement conferences. (ECF No. 631.) This Report and Recommendation is 

submitted to United States District Judge Janis L. Sammartino pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b). After careful review of the record, the facts, and the applicable law, the Court 

hereby RECOMMENDS that terminating sanctions be issued against the following five

defendants for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 

18 and 19, 2016: (1) Behzad Kianmahd; (2) Nader Sahih; (3) Rajesh Arora; (4) Basel 

Hassounch; and (5) Parshotam S. Kamboj.

1

 

1 By separate order, this Court addresses the issue of monetary sanctions as to the other defendants 

identified in the pending Order to Show Cause who also failed to appear at the Mandatory Settlement 

Conference held on October 18 and 19, 2016–NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and 

Sahar Kirmiz. (ECF Nos. 627; 628; 631.) This order addresses only those defendants against whom this 

Court recommends the imposition of terminating sanctions–Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, 

Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj.

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 14
2

12cv665-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

BACKGROUND

1. Identification of These Defendants

As pled in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint, Defendant Behzad Kianmahd

(along with another defendant) executed a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally 

guaranteeing the obligations of Shomers Group, LLC with respect to its Franchise 

Agreements with Plaintiff BP West Coast Products LLC; Defendant Nader Sahih (along 

with Defendant Payam Sahih) executed a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally 

guaranteeing the obligations of Defendant NP Petroleum Corp. with respect to its Franchise 

Agreements with Plaintiff; Defendant Rajesh Arora (along with another defendant) 

executed a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally guaranteeing the obligations of 

Daisie Enterprises, Inc. with respect to its Franchise Agreements with Plaintiff; Defendant 

Basel Hassounch (along with another defendant) (i) were the operators and franchisees of 

the gasoline service station located at 1539 S. Standard Ave, Santa Ana, California 92707 

(Facility No. 9593), and (ii) executed a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally 

guaranteeing the obligations with respect to their Franchise Agreement with Plaintiff; and 

Defendant Parshotam S. Kamboj was the operator and franchisee of the gasoline service 

stations located at 3302 Del Mar Ave., Rosemead, California 91770 (Facility No. 9509)

and 1386 Last Tunas Dr., San Gabriel, California 91776 (Facility No. 9665). (ECF No. 

296-3 at ¶¶26, 40, 41, 58, 65-66.)

2. History of Prior Misconduct as Determined by Judge Sammartino

District Judge Sammartino’s December 14, 2015 and May 2, 2016 orders recount 

the “repeated discovery misconduct” of Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, 

Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj, which resulted in the district 

court granting in part Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions.

2

 (ECF Nos. 478; 498.) Defendants 

 

2

In addition to its attorneys’ fees and costs, in its motions, Plaintiff sought the terminating sanction of 

default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on its Fifth Amended Complaint and dismissal of any counterclaims. 

(ECF Nos. 446; 447; 448.) The district court granted Plaintiff’s request for its attorneys’ fees and costs, 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 14
3

12cv665-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

Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. 

Kamboj were among the defendants referred to as “Motion 3 Defendants” and each of them 

violated all of a series of court orders, including a May 19, 2015, order granting in part 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (ECF No. 404); a May 28, 2015, order granting in part another 

of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, (ECF No. 411); a June 2, 2015, order granting yet another 

of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, (ECF No. 421); and a July 7, 2015, Minute Order directing 

the parties to meet and confer regarding the Motion 3 Defendants’ non-compliance with 

the Court’s discovery orders, (ECF No. 436).3 (ECF Nos. 448-11; 478 at 3.) Defendant 

Parshotam S. Kamboj was also a “Motion 2 Defendant” because he engaged in the 

additional discovery abuse of failing to attend his deposition. (ECF No. 478 at 4.) The 

district court explicitly warned Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, 

Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj that failure to comply with discovery orders 

would result in terminating sanctions. (ECF No. 478 at 15-17 (“the Court hereby GIVES 

NOTICE . . . that further failure to comply with discovery orders or to meaningfully 

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

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

3. First Mandatory Settlement Conference

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt held the first mandatory settlement conference 

involving these defendants on June 8, 2016. Many defendants failed to appear or arrived 

more than an hour late. As a result, in August, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt 

issued monetary sanctions against a subset of thirty-six defendants and their attorneys,4and 

 

but denied Plaintiff’s request for default and dismissal against Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader 

Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj (among others). (ECF No. 478.)

3 The district court labeled groups of defendants as Motion 1, Motion 2, and Motion 3 Defendants to 

correspond with three motions for sanctions filed by Plaintiff against three groups of defendants based on 

common sets of facts. As Judge Sammartino explained, “the alleged misconduct gets less severe with 

each motion, so that Motion 1 sets forth the most serious episodes of misconduct whereas Motion 3 details 

the least serious.” (ECF No. 478 at 2.)

4 Thirty-six defendants were ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue against them because 

they either failed to appear or were more than an hour late to the mandatory settlement conference held 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 14
4

12cv665-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

recommended terminating sanctions against nineteen of those defendants for their failures 

to appear or late arrivals at the June 8, 2016 mandatory settlement conference. (ECF Nos. 

548; 550.) 

Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, and Basel Hassounch

were among the defendants against whom monetary sanctions were ordered and 

terminating sanctions were recommended for their failure to appear. (Id.) At that time, 

Judge Burkhardt did not issue monetary sanctions or recommend the imposition of 

termination sanctions upon Defendant Parshotam S. Kamboj despite his failure to appear 

on June 8, 2016. (ECF Nos. 548 at 7, 12; 550 at 3.) This was because Defendant Parshotam 

S. Kamboj had filed a declaration in response the Order to Show Cause addressing his 

failure to appear and setting forth good cause excusing his appearance. (ECF Nos. 548 at 

12 (referring to the declaration filed at ECF No. 538 at 22-23).)

Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, and Basel Hassounch

filed objections appealing the aforementioned sanctions order by Judge Burkhardt. On

November 29, 2016, the district court ruled on these objections in a written order. (ECF 

No. 649.) Judge Sammartino denied the appeal as to the monetary sanctions, but granted 

the appeal insofar as she declined to adopt Judge Burkhardt’s recommendation that 

terminating sanctions be issued against these defendants. (Id. at 12.) 

In its order ruling on the objections, the district court cautioned Defendants Behzad 

Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, and Basel Hassounch:

To be clear: the Court finds that the Remaining Defendants did, 

in fact, violate a Court Order, thus affecting many other parties’ 

and Judge Burkhardt’s ability to be able to effectively conduct 

the MSC. And this is the second time the Remaining Defendants 

have been sanctioned in this litigation. Accordingly, the 

 

on June 8, 2016. (See ECF Nos. 531; 532.) Of those thirty-six, twenty-eight received sanctions. (ECF 

No. 550.)

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 14
5

12cv665-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 would be well advised to reflect on the 

familiar idiom ‘three strikes and you are out.’

(Id. at 11 (emphasis in original).) Further, Judge Sammartino concluded her order by 

providing the following notice: “the 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 entry of judgment against them and 

dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b).” (Id. at 12 (emphasis in original).) 

4. Second Mandatory Settlement Conference

This Court held another mandatory settlement conference on October 18 and 

October 19, 2016. (ECF Nos. 627; 628.) The requirement that these defendants appear in 

person could not have been clearer as multiple orders communicated to Defendants Behzad 

Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj that 

their personal appearances were required. 

First, prior orders by both Judge Burkhardt and Judge Sammartino explained that 

Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. 

Kamboj are each “parties” to this litigation who are required to appear in person for 

mandatory settlement conferences. (ECF Nos. 531; 548 at 8, 550; 649 at 11 (“To be clear: 

the Court finds that the Remaining Defendants did, in fact, violate a Court Order”).)

Second, on August 31, 2016, Judge Sammartino ordered that “[t]he parties SHALL

by all means practicable attend, prior to the aforementioned [November 10, 2016] status 

conference, a two day settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt.” (ECF 

No. 576.) In furtherance of that order, on September 1, 2016, Judge Burkhardt issued an 

order setting the Mandatory Settlement Conference and directing all parties to attend “in 

person” in the section of the order titled “Personal Appearance of ALL PARTIES 

Required.” (ECF No. 577 (emphasis in original).) Again, prior orders by the Court made 

clear that this language includes Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel 

Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj because they are each named defendants in this 

action. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 14
6

12cv665-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

Third, on September 12, 2016, the Court reset the Mandatory Settlement Conference 

to October 18 and 19, 2016 and again directed all parties to attend in person. (ECF No. 

582.) These specific dates were selected based on the parties’ joint representation that “the 

parties are available for mandatory settlement conference on October 18 and 19, 2016.” 

(Id.; ECF No. 581 at 2.) In addition, on October 4, 2016, in moving to excuse other 

defendants from the Mandatory Settlement Conference, Defendants’ counsel represented, 

“I have attempted to confirm and reconfirm repeatedly with all of my clients that they will 

be in attendance.” (ECF No. 595 at 2-3 (emphasis added).) Moreover, each of Judge 

Burkhardt’s orders setting the Mandatory Settlement Conference cautioned that failure to 

appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference would be grounds for sanctions. (ECF No. 

577; 582.)

Finally, lest there be any doubt that Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, 

Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj were on notice that they were 

among those required to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference, the Court ordered 

the specific time by which each defendant was to arrive on October 18 and 19, 2016. (ECF 

No. 597.) Judge Burkhardt’s order was issued on October 6, 2017 and instructed as 

follows:

2. On October 18, 2016 at 9:45 AM, the following parties 

SHALL APPEAR:

. . . .

i. Behzad Kianmahd

. . . .

m. Nader Sahih

. . . .

6. On October 19, 2016 at 9:45 AM, the following parties 

SHALL APPEAR:

. . . .

h. Rajesh Arora

7. On October 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, the following parties 

SHALL APPEAR:

. . . .

b. Parshotam S. Kamboj

. . . .

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 14
7

12cv665-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

j. Basel Hassounch

(Id. at 3-5 (¶¶2, 6-7).) 

Then, on October 12, 2016, the Court ruled on all outstanding motions to excuse the 

personal appearance of any party and again provided an arrival schedule for all remaining 

parties for the Mandatory Settlement Conference. (ECF No. 611.) This order reaffirmed, 

and did not alter, the specific times by which Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, 

Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj were to arrive on October 18 

and 19, 2016. (Id. at 2-4 (¶¶2, 6-7).) The record could not be any clearer that these 

defendants were required to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. 

In spite of all of these directives, Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, 

Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj (among others) failed to appear

and the mandatory settlement conference. (ECF No. 627; 628.) Accordingly, on October 

21, 2016, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause in this case instructing Defendants 

Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. 

Kamboj that “on or before November 4, 2016,” they “SHALL each file a separate sworn 

declaration informing the Court why they did not comply with Section II.C. of Magistrate 

Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules and this Court’s this Court’s orders.” (ECF 

No. 631 (emphasis in original).) Defendants never filed a declaration (or any written 

response) as required by the Court’s October 21, 2016 Order to Show Cause. (See ECF 

No. 675.) Thus, this Court took the matter under submission without oral argument. (Id.)5

LEGAL STANDARD

“All federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their 

cases and courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders. . . . As a function 

 

5 Defendants’ counsel was critically injured in an accident after Defendants’ November 4, 2016 deadline. 

(See ECF No. 657.) Due to counsel’s unavailability, the Court repeatedly continued its hearing on the 

Order to Show Cause. (ECF Nos. 643; 658; 668.) However, having received no written response to the 

Court’s Order to Show Cause, this matter was deemed appropriate for decision without oral argument.

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 14
8

12cv665-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

of this power, courts can dismiss cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award attorney’s 

fees and assess fines.” Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964–65 (9th 

Cir. 2004). “Sanctions are an appropriate response to ‘willful disobedience of a court 

order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for 

oppressive reasons.’” Id. (citing Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001)); see 

also Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that a 

“determination that an order was disobeyed is entitled to considerable weight” because 

the judge issuing the order “is the best equipped to assess the circumstances of the noncompliance” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). “Failure of counsel or of any party

to comply . . . . with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court of 

any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the 

court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of 

contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser 

sanctions.” CivLR 83.1.a.

Dispositive sanctions are “authorized only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and only 

where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.’” In re Exxon 

Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996). “Disobedient conduct not shown to be outside 

the control of the litigant is sufficient to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” 

Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 

24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994)). “In deciding whether a sanction of dismissal or 

default for noncompliance with discovery is appropriate, the district court must weigh five 

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need 

to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [opposing party]; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” Computer Task Grp., Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(quoting Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). This test is a disjunctive balancing test, so not all five factors must support 

dismissal. See Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 14
9

12cv665-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

1998) (observing that the five-factor test “amounts to a way for a district judge to think 

about what to do, not a series of conditions precedent” to dismissal).

DISCUSSION

On balance, the five factors utilized in deciding whether to issue terminating 

sanctions weigh in favor of this Court’s recommendation that judgment be entered against 

Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and 

Parshotam S. Kamboj and that any counterclaim of these defendants be dismissed. 

Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and 

Parshotam S. Kamboj failed to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement 

Conference held on October 18-19, 2016. They have not provided any explanations for 

their failures to appear, much less demonstrated that their failures to appear were for 

reasons outside their control. 

1. The Public’s Interest in Expeditious Resolution of Litigation

The public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation generally favors 

dismissal. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Given the age of this 

case and Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and 

Parshotam S. Kamboj’s failures to meaningfully participate in discovery and court-ordered 

settlement conferences, this factor weighs in favor of terminating sanctions. (See ECF Nos. 

404, 411, 421, 436, 448-11 (summary chart of non-compliance with court orders), 478, 

498, 531, 548, 550, 531, 631, 649.)

2. Court’s Need to Manage its Docket

“It is incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine 

noncompliance of litigants.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642. A significant amount of court 

time has been spent on addressing noncompliance issues concerning each of these 

defendants. (See ECF Nos. 404, 411, 421, 436, 448-11 (summary chart of non-compliance 

with court orders), 478, 498, 531, 548, 550, 531, 631, 649.) This time could have been 

devoted to other cases or to moving this case forward more efficiently with the parties who 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 14
10

12cv665-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

do comply with court orders. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of terminating 

sanctions. 

3. Risk of Prejudice to Plaintiff

The prejudice factor “looks to whether the [noncompliant party’s] . . . actions

impaired . . . [the other side’s] ability to go to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful 

decision of the case.” U.S. for Use & Ben. of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Const. Co., 

857 F.2d 600, 604 (9th Cir. 1988). “Unnecessary delay inherently increases the risk that 

witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale.” Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 

643. The failure of Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel 

Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj to meaningfully participate in discovery and courtordered settlement conferences has caused unnecessary delay, and has caused Plaintiff to 

spend time bringing discovery motions and preparing for settlement conferences with noshow defendants. The repeated noncompliance of these defendants has increased the risk 

of prejudice to Plaintiff. (See ECF Nos. 404, 411, 421, 436, 448-11 (summary chart of 

non-compliance with court orders), 478, 498, 531, 548, 550, 531, 631, 649; see also ECF 

No. 478 at 12, 15 (Parshotam S. Kamboj’s “conduct has also prejudiced BP by increasing 

the time and cost associated with this litigation”).) This factor weighs in favor of 

terminating sanctions.

4. Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on their Merits

Public policy favors disposition of cases on the merits. Thus, this factor weighs 

against dismissal. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998).

5. Availability of Less Drastic Sanctions

This factor requires a court to consider the “impact of the sanction and the adequacy 

of less drastic sanctions.” Kahalu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d at 604. In Kahaluu Constr. Co., 

the Ninth Circuit opined that “the district court is generally required to discuss alternative 

sanctions; but, in exceptional cases, where it is clear that no other alternative would have 

been reasonable, we may affirm a dismissal or default judgment despite the absence of 

such a discussion.” Id. (citing Halaco Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 381 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 14
11

12cv665-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

1998)) (“consideration of less severe penalties must be a reasonable explanation of possible 

and meaningful alternatives.”). The fact that a court “actually implemented alternative 

sanctions prior to dismissal may be enough to satisfy the ‘consideration of alternatives’ 

requirement.” Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d at 604. 

Here, no other alternative to terminating sanctions is reasonable. For their 

noncompliance in discovery and for prior failures to appear at a mandatory settlement 

conference, stern warnings and monetary sanctions have issued against Defendants.

6

 (See, 

e.g., ECF Nos. 478; 498; 531; 649.) 

Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, and Basel Hassounch

have yet to pay monetary sanctions to the Court as ordered for their failure to appear for 

the first mandatory settlement conference. (See generally CM/ECF docket.) Pursuant to 

Judge Sammartino’s November 29, 2016 Order, by December 27, 2016, each of these four 

defendants was required to pay $400.00 to the “Miscellaneous Fines, Penalties and 

Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States Treasury” and “file a 

Notice of Payment.” (ECF No. 649; see also ECF No. 550.) 

In addition, as far as the Court is aware, four of these five defendants–Defendants 

Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, and Parshotam S. Kamboj–have yet to pay 

sanctions to Plaintiff as ordered by the Court. (See ECF Nos. 498; 652.)7 Thus, whether 

 

6 As explained herein, Parshotam S. Kamboj is the only defendant subject to this report and 

recommendation who was not previously sanctioned for his failure to appear at the first mandatory 

settlement conference. However, like the other defendants at issue here, Parshotam S. Kamboj failed to 

appear at that mandatory conference and was specifically put on notice that “monetary or other sanctions, 

including dispositive sanctions” could issue for his failure to appear at that conference. (ECF No. 531 at 

4-5 (“shall show cause why monetary or other sanctions, including dispositive sanctions, should not issue 

against each . . . for their failure to appear”).) 

7 According to Plaintiff’s filing titled “Notice of Non-Compliance with Court Orders Regarding Payment 

of Sanctions by Lacey Defendants,” Plaintiff still has not received payments from these four defendants:

 Daisie Enterprises Inc./Anup Patel/Rajesh Arora ($1,391.19)

 NP Petroleum Corp./Nader Sahih/Payam Sahih ($1,391.19)

 Parshotam Kamboj ($4,975.09)

 Shomers Group LLC/Bahman Kianmahd/Behzad Kianmahd ($1,391.19)

(ECF No. 652 at 2-3 (filed December 1, 2016).)

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 14
12

12cv665-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

owed to Plaintiff or to the United States Treasury (or both), all defendants are in arrears 

and in violation of one or more orders for monetary sanctions.

Moreover, in the various sanctions orders against these defendants, Judge Burkhardt 

and Judge Sammartino issued repeated warnings that additional sanctions, including 

terminating sanctions, may issue for any further non-compliance with court orders.

8 Most 

recently, Judge Sammartino cautioned Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh 

Arora, and Basel Hassounch (who already have been sanctioned twice in this litigation) 

that terminating sanctions would result for future violations and they “would be well 

advised to reflect on the familiar idiom ‘three strikes and you are out.’” (ECF No. 649 at 

11-12.) 

Defendant Parshotam S. Kamboj is the only defendant for whom this Court is now 

recommending terminating sanctions without having previously recommended this level 

of sanctions. There are two specific reasons why this Court is now recommending 

terminating sanctions as to this defendant. First, Defendant Parshotam S. Kamboj was a 

“a Motion 2 Defendant,” that is, he previously failed to appear for his deposition and was 

sanctioned for that very serious conduct. Secondly, this Court excused (after the fact) 

Defendant Parshotam S. Kamboj’s failure to appear at the June 8, 2016 mandatory 

settlement conference because he filed a declaration stating in part: “At no time did I 

receive an email from . . . [attorney] Pamela G. Lacey . . . . I admit that I am not actively 

involved in oversight of this case and thought it had been dismissed. I am truly sorry to 

 

8

(See ECF Nos. 478 at n.2 & pp. 3, 16-18 (“The Court hereby GIVES NOTICE to the Motion 3 

Defendants that further failure to comply with discovery orders or to meaningfully participate in 

discovery, even absent an order to compel, may result in entry of default judgment against them and 

dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b).”); 548 at 14, 16 (“The sanctions for those 

individuals who did not appear and did not file declarations and whose matters were not resolved at the 

MSC will be $400. . . . I am also recommending to District Judge Sammartino that she impose terminating 

sanctions as a consequence for these failures to appear”); 550 (same); 649 at 9-12 (“the 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 entry of judgment against them 

and dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b).”).)

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 14
13

12cv665-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

the Court for any delay or expense caused by my absence and am absolutely interested in 

participating in any future hearings. I promise that I will keep my attorneys informed

. . . so that nothing like this occurs in the future.” (ECF No. 538 at 23 (emphasis added).) 

In light of Defendant Parshotam S. Kamboj’s failure to appear at his subsequent mandatory 

settlement conference, the Court no longer credits the protestations which allowed him to 

avoid sanctions for his first failure to appear. 

In sum, the less drastic methods employed by the Court against Defendants Behzad 

Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj to 

secure compliance in this litigation have not been effective.

Based on the record before the Court, this Court finds that Defendants Behzad 

Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj are at 

fault for their failures to appear and recommends that the district court issue terminating 

sanctions, the risk of which these defendants were previously on notice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that judgment be entered 

against Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and 

Parshotam S. Kamboj and any counterclaim of Defendants Behzad Kianmahd, Nader 

Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and Parshotam S. Kamboj be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and 

Recommendation must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

October 27, 2017. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 

Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the 

Court and served on all parties no later than November 3, 2017. The parties are advised 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 14
14

12cv665-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

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order.9

Dated: October 13, 2017

 

9 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 688 Filed 10/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 14