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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT F A R H A D F A Z L I , e tc ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, a nd M E H R A N H A R I R I , e tc ., P l ai nt i ff

, v. C O N O C O P H I L L I P S C O M P A N Y , a T e xa s C orpor a t i on, D ef

endant -C ou nt er -c l ai m ant - A pp el l ee , JA L IL M A JD I, C o u n te r - d e f

e n d a n t. N o. 08- 56789 D . C . N o . C V 0 3 - 0 4 9 3 8 F MC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F l or e nc e M a r i e C oope r , 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 F e brua ry 9, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED MA R 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e J e r e m y F oge l , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** N or the rn D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. U n d e rap p lic ab le p r o v is io n s o f th e P M P A , af

r a n c h is o rs e e k in g to s e ll a 1 se rvi ce st at i on l ea se d and op er at ed by a f ra nchi se e m ust , w i thi n n i nety day s a ft er i s s ui ng the not i c e of

nonr e ne w a l of

f r a nc hi s e , m a ke a bona f i de of f e rt o s e l l the s t a t i on t o the f

r a nc hi s e e orgi ve the f

r a nc hi s e e a n oppor tuni ty t o buy the s t a t i on on th e s a m e te rm s a s a th ir d p a r ty o f f e r . 1 5 U .S .C . § 2 8 0 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( D ) ( iii) . 2 B ef ore: T H O M A S and S IL V E R M A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and F O G E L , D i stri ct J udge ** F a rh a d F a z li ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a vorof C onoc oP hi l l i ps C om pa ny w i th r e s pe c tt o F a z l i ’ s c l a i m s unde rthe P e tr ol e um M a rke t i ng P r a c t i c e s A c t( “ P M P A ” ) a nd unde rs t a t e l a w . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he “ l a w of

the c a s e ” doc tr i ne di d notpr e c l ude the di s tr i c tc our tf r om e nt e r t a i ni ng C onoc oP hi l l i ps ’ m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e ntf ol l ow i ng r e m a nd of the ac t i on , because our di sposi t i on of the pri or appeal di d n otaddres s w hether C o n o c o P h illip s h a d m a d e a b o n af id e o f f e rto F a z li. Se e U

n ite d S ta te s ex r e l. 1 L uj an v . H

ughe s A i r c r af

t C o. , 243 F . 3d 1181, 1186 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( “ [ t ] he doc tr i ne doe s notappl y t o i s s ue s nota ddr e s s e d by the appe l l a t e c our t ” ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pr i oror de r , w he n the i s s ue i s one tha tpr e vi ous l y w a s de c i de d by th e d is tr ic t c o u r t its e lf

, ap p lic a tio n o f

th e d o c tr in e is d is c r e tio n a ry . U ni ted Stat es v. Sm ith , 38 9 F . 3d 94 4, 94 9 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). “ ‘ A l l rul i ng s of atri al courtar e s ubj ec t3

t o revi si on atany t i m e bef ore the entryof j ud gm ent . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni ted Stat es v. H ou se r , 8 0 4 F .2 d 5 6 5 , 5 6 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . F az l i di d n otobj ec tt o adm i ss i on of the G l enw oo d o ff eri n the di stri ctcourt p r o c e e d in g s a n d th u s h e h a s w a iv e d th e o b je c tio n . See U

n i ted B h d. o f C a rp en ters a n d Jo i n ers o

f A m . , L a th ers L o ca l

4 2 -L v. U

n i ted B h d. o f C a rp en ters a n d

Jo i n ers o f A m. , 73 F . 3d 958, 962 n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . M or e ove r , the pr oba t i ve va l ue of the G l e nw ood of

f e ri s nota f

f e c t e d by C onoc oP hi l l i ps ’ f a i l ur e t o i nf

orm F a z l i of

the o f f e ra t a n e a r lie rp o in t in tim e . Se e R hode s v . A m oc o O i l C o. , 143 F . 3d 1369, 1374 n. 6 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( “ A s w e ha ve not e d, the pr ope rt e s ti s a n ob j ec t i ve anal ys i s w hether the fi nal offe r of A m oco w as bo na fi de. In thi s a nal ys i s, w hether the pl a i nt i f

f’ s e vi de nc e w a s c om m uni c a t e d t o A m oc o be f or e c om m e nc e m e ntof

the l aw sui tcoul d h ave no b ea ri ng . ”) (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). F i nal l y, F az l i i s m i st aken i n ass ert i ng thatcourt s m ayno tconsi der e vi dence of offe rs and app ra i sa l s that p o s t- d a te ap u rp o r te d b o n af id e o f f e r . Se e Slatk

y v . A m oc o O i l

C o. , 830 F . 2d 476, 48 5-86 (3d C i r. 19 87 ) ( ho l di ng thatdi stri ctcourtshou l d h ave c on si dere d evi dence i n the r e c or d, w hi c h i nc l ude d pr e - a nd pos t - of f e rappr a i s a l s , i n de t e rm i ni ng w h e th e rth e f

r a n c h is o r ’s s a le o f

f e rw a s b o n af

id e ) ; A n a n d

v. B P W est C o a st Pr o du c t s LLC , 4 8 4 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 7 - 9 8 ( C .D . C a l. 2 0 0 7 ) ( c o n s id e r in g b o th p r e - a n d p o s t- o f

f e rap p r a is a ls ) ; H

ar ar a v . C onoc oP hi l l i

ps , 377 F . S upp. 2d 779,4

78 8 (N . D . C al . 20 05 ) ( consi deri ng pre- offe r app ra i sa l s, a post -off erbi d b y athi rd p a r ty , a n d th e p o s t- o f

f e rs a le o f th e p r o p e r tyto a th ir d p a r ty ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith r e s p e c t to F a z l i ’ s P M P A c l a i m . V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o F a z l i , no r e a s onabl e tr i e rof

f a c tc oul d c onc l ude tha tC onoc oP hi l l i ps f a i l e d t o m a ke a bona f i de of f e rt o F a z l i pr i ort o s e l l i ng the s t a t i on t o a thi r d pa r ty . T he t ot a l i ty of the e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th a t C o n o c o P h illip s ’ s a le o f f e ro f $ 9 8 0 ,0 0 0 ap p r o a c h e d f a ir m a rk e t v a lu e . Se e E llis v . Mo b il O il , 9 6 9 F .2 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( a n o f f e rto s e l l i s bonaf

i de unde rthe P M P A i f

i tappr oa c he s f

a i rm a rke tva l ue ) . T he d if f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e c o m p e tin g v a lu a tio n s w e r e n o t s u b s ta n tia l e n o u g h to c r e a te atr iab le is s u e a s to th is m a te r ia l f a c t. See R ho des , 1 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 2 ( “W e w is h to e m pha s i z e , how e ve r , tha tw e do not hol d tha ts um m a ry j udgm e ntf orthe f r a nc hi s or ca n n everbe prop er , and thatj ury tri al m ustal w ay s be had, w henever the part i es e a c h pr oduc e a n appr a i s a l a nd the appr a i s a l s do nota rr i ve a ti de nt i c a l c onc l us i ons o n v a lu e .” ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ; Sa nd l i n v. T ex aco R ef

i ni ngan d Marke t i ng, Inc. , 90 0 F . 2d 14 79 , 14 82 -83 (19 90 ) ( ho l di ng as a m att erof l aw thatthe offerpri ce w as “o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le a s a r e f le c tio n o f

f a irm a rk e t v a lu e ” w h e r e th e r e w a s o n ly an i nsub st ant i al di ff

er ence betw ee n the com pet i ng apprai sa l s a nd the offerpri ce fe l l betw ee n them ).5

N o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rrin g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith r e s p e c t to F a z l i ’ s s t a t e l a w c l a i m s , wh i c h a r e d e r i v a t i v e o f o rp r e e m p t e d b y th e P MP A. A FFI R M ED .