Opinion ID: 215234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equilon’s Contractual Counterclaim

Text: 2 We also reject Equilon’s argument that Ervco waived the Rule 50(a) issue by not raising this issue in its district court briefing. In light of the procedurally incorrect manner in which the district court invoked Rule 50(a) to enter judgment for Equilon, Ervco’s objection to entry of a Rule 50(a) judgment at the pre-trial hearing was sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. 4 The district court also erred in granting summary judgment on Equilon’s counterclaim for breach of contract. The district court erroneously concluded that Equilon could recover for Ervco’s 11-month holdover tenancy regardless whether Ervco had a legal right, under the PMPA, to remain on the Property until it received a bona fide offer from Equilon. However, the district court reached this conclusion by mischaracterizing our holding in Hilo v. Exxon Corp., 997 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1993). The district court read Hilo to hold that the determination of rights under a lease agreement was wholly separate from the parties’ rights and obligations under the PMPA. In fact, Hilo held that franchisees may have a legal right to stay on the disputed property pending resolution of litigation over whether a bona fide offer was made or was required. Id. at 647. Whether Ervco had a legal right to occupy the property in question pending the outcome of litigation depends on the terms of the lease and the PMPA, and any other evidence relevant and admissible to interpret the terms of the lease and PMPA. As the district court’s award of liquidated and actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs was premised on its unwarranted grant of summary judgment in favor of Equilon on the contractual counterclaim, these awards must also be reversed. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 5