T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E R V C O , I N C . , a n A r i z onac orpor a t i on, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, DA NI E L J . E R VI N, P la in tif

f - c o u n te r - d e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t, v. T E XA C O R E F I NI NG AN D M A R K E T IN G , IN C . , a D el aw ar e c orpor a t i on, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee , E Q U I L O N E N T E R P R I S E S , L .L .C ., a D el aw are l i m i t ed l i ab i l i ty co m p an y, D e f

e n d a n t- c o u n te r - c la im a n t - A pp el l ee , v. S HA R I E E R VI N, C o u n te r - d e f e n d a n t - N o. 09- 17072

D. C . No . 2 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 4 5 2 - R OS ME MOR AN DU M * 

# FI LED APR21 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A p p e lla n t. A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona R os l y n O . S i l ve r , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r5, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: N O O N A N , P A E Z , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E rvco, Inc. , and i t s ow ners , D ani el and S hari e E rvi n, appeal : (1) the di stri ct court ’ s pre -tri al , sua s po nt e gra ntof j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw (“ JM O L ”) un der F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) in f a v o ro f E q u ilo n E n te rp r is e s , L L C in E rvc o’ s s ui tf

ora l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of

the P e tr ol e um M a rke t i ng P r a c t i c e s A c t , 15 U . S . C . § 2801 et

se q . (“P M P A ”) ; (2 ) th e g ra n t o f s u m m ar y ju d g m en t o n E q u il o n ’s c ontr a c tua l c ount e r c l a i m ; ( 3) the a w a r d of a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s t o E qui l on; a nd ( 4) s e ve r a l e vi de nt i a ry de t e rm i na t i ons unde r l y i ng thos e rul i ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe f

i r s tthr e e i s s ue s pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd. B e c aus e w e r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof J M O L , thi s c our tdoe s not h av e ju risd icti o n to ad d re ss E rv co ’s ap p ea l o f th e d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f E q u il o n ’s m o ti o n s in li m in e s trik in g D an iel E rv in ’s se co n d d ec lara ti o n , M ar ia K as em ’s d e c la r a tio n , a n d E rv c o ’s d a m a g e s f ig u r e . Se e C ours e n v . A . H. R obi ns C o. , 764 F . 2d 13 29 , 13 42 (9th C i r. 19 85 ) ( ho l di ng thatm ot i on s i n l i m i ne ar e notthem se l vesR u le 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) a llo w s ac o u r t to g r a n t J M O L “if ap a r ty h a s b e e n f

u lly 1 hear d o n an i ss ue du ri ng a j ury tri al and the courtfi nd s thata r ea sonabl e j ury w ou l d n othave a l egal l y s uffi ci entevi dent i ary bas i s t o fi nd for the party on that i s s ue . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 50( a ) ( 1) 3 f i na l appe a l abl e or de r s unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291 w he r e the r e i s no f i na l de c i s i on on th e m eri t s o f th e l i t i g at i o n ). T h e p art i es are fam i l i ar w i th th e fact s o f th e case, s o w e r e p e a t th e m h e r e o n ly to th e e x te n t n e c e s s a ry to e x p la in o u rd e c is io n . I . P r e - t r i a lGr a n t o f

J M OL E rvc o c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pr e - tr i a l gr a ntof R ul e 50 J M O L . O ur 1 ci rc ui tl aw cl earl y hol ds thatR ul e 50 JM O L

— w hether r ai se d b y the part i es or s ua s p o n te by the di s tr i c tc ourt

— c a nnotbe gr a nt e d be f or e the tr i a l ha s be gun a nd the p a rty ’s e v id e n c e o n th a t is s u e h a s b e e n f u lly h e a r d b y th e ju ry . Mc She r r y v . C i t y of L on g B each , 4 2 3 F .3 d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( re v er sin g th e d istrict co u rt’s grantof R ul e 50 JM O L atthe ou t se tof tri al , before any e vi dence had been p r e s e n te d to th e ju ry ) ; see a l so Su m m er

s v . D el ta A i r L i nes, Inc. , 508 F . 3d 923, 928 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( re vers i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof R ul e 50 JM O L du ri ng tri al w here the courtre qu i re d an o ff erof proo f a s t o w hatthe re m ai ni ng w i tness es w o u ld s a y , in s te a d o f

a llo w in g p r e s e n ta tio n o f liv e te s tim o n y b e f

o r e th e ju ry ) . B ec ause the di stri ctcourthere grant ed i t s ow n R ul e 50 m ot i on for J M O L before th e ju ry w a s e m p a n e le d o rh e a r d a n y e v id e n c e , its J M O L ru lin g m u s t b e r e v e r s e d .W e a l s o r e j e c tE qui l on’ s a r gum e nttha tE rvc o w a i ve d the R ul e 50( a ) i s s ue 2 b y n o t r a is in g th is is s u e in its d is tr ic t c o u r t b r ie f in g . I n lig h t o f

th e p r o c e d u r a lly i nc orr e c tm a nne ri n w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our ti nvoke d R ul e 50( a ) t o e nt e rj udgm e nt for E qu i l on , E rvco’ s obj ec t i on t o entryof a R ul e 50(a) j ud gm entatthe pre-tri al h e a r i n g wa s s u f

f i c i e n tt o p r e s e rv e th e i s s u e f o rap p e l l a t e r e v i e w. 4 W e typ ic a lly d o n o t c o n s id e ra r g u m e n ts o n ap p e a l w h ic h w e r e n o t r a is e d in th e ap p e lla n t’s o p e n in g b r ie f . U ni te d State s v . Ul lah , 97 6 F . 2d 50 9, 51 3 (9th C i r. 1992) . H e r e , E rvc o f

a i l e d s pe c i f

i c a l l y t o r a i s e i n i t s ope ni ng br i e f the a r gum e nt th a t ap r e - tr ia l g r a n t o f

J M O L is p e rs e v io la tiv e o f R u le 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) . H o w e v e r , th is c ourtha s di s c r e t i on t o c ons i de rc l a i m s notm e nt i one d unt i l or a l a r gum e ntw he r e the part i es subsequent l y bri ef ed the i ss ue and i t s om i ss i on fr om the op eni ng bri ef s has n o t p r e ju d ic e d e ith e rp a rty . U

ni ted Stat es v. G am m a T ec h Indus. , Inc. , 265 F . 3d 917, 930 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( c ons i de r i ng a n i s s ue notr a i s e d i n the pa r t i e s ’ ope ni ng b r ie f s a f te rs u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f

in g b y b o th p a r tie s ) ; see a l so W eise r v . U

ni ted Stat es , 959 F . 2d 146, 147 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ( hol di ng tha tthi s c our tc a n de c i de ac a s e on a ny gr ound s upport e d by the r e c or d, e ve n i f tha tgr ound w a s notr a i s e d by the pa r t i e s or r e l i e d upon by the di s tr i c tc ourt ) . H e r e , both pa r t i e s f i l e d s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f

s on the i s s ue , a nd ne i the rpa rty w i l l be undul y pr e j udi c e d by ourc ons i de r a t i on of the i s s ue . T he r e f

or e , E rvc o’ s a r gum e nttha tJ M O L s houl d notha ve be e n gr a nt e d, gi ve n the l a ngua ge of

R ul e 50, c a n be c ons i de r e d. 2 I I . E q u i l o n ’ s Co n t r a c t u a lCo u n t e r c l a i m5

T h e d istrict co u rt also er re d in g ra n ti n g su m m ar y ju d g m en t o n E q u il o n ’s coun t er cl ai m for bre ac h o f c on tra ct . T he di stri ctcourterroneou sl y c on cl ud ed that E qu i l on coul d rec ov erfor E rvco’ s 11-m on th h ol do ver t enancyre gardl es s w hether E rv c o h a d ale g a l r ig h t, u n d e rth e P M P A , to r e m a in o n th e P r o p e r ty u n til it r e c e iv e d ab o n af

id e o f f e rf r o m E q u ilo n . H o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a c h e d th is c onc l us i on by m i s c ha r a c t e r i z i ng ourhol di ng i n Hi lo v . E xx on C or p. , 997 F . 2d 641 ( 9th C i r . 1993) . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e a d Hi lo to h o ld th a t th e d e te rm in a tio n o f r ig h ts unde ral e a s e a gr e e m e ntw a s w hol l y s e pa r a t e f r om the pa r t i e s ’ r i ght s a nd o b lig a tio n s u n d e rth e P M P A . I n f a c t, Hilo hel d thatfr anchi se es m ayhave a l egal ri gh tt o st ayon the di sput ed prop erty pendi ng re sol ut i on of l i t i gat i on ov erw hether ab o n af id e o f f e rw a s m a d e o rw a s r e q u ir e d . Id . at64 7. W hether E rvco had a l egal r i ghtt o oc c upy the pr ope rty i n que s t i on pe ndi ng the out c om e of l i t i ga t i on de pe nds on the t e rm s of

the l e a s e a nd the P M P A , a nd a ny othe re vi de nc e r e l e va nta nd a d m is s ib le to in te rp r e t th e te rm s o f th e le a s e a n d P M P A . A s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s aw ard o f l i q u i d at ed an d actu al d am ag es, att o rn eys’ f e e s , a n d c o s ts w a s p r e m is e d o n its u n w a rr a n te d g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a vorof E qui l on on the c ontr a c tua l c ount e r c l a i m , the s e a w a r ds m us ta l s o be r e ve r s e d. RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.