BP West Coast Products LLC v. Crossroad Petroleum, Inc. et al
Filing
687
ORDER for Monetary Sanctions re #631 Order to Show Cause. The Court hereby orders that monetary sanctions be paid by the following four defendants for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 18 and 19, 2016: (1) NP Petroleum Corp.; (2) Payam Sahih; (3) William Kirmiz; and (4) Sahar Kirmiz. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt on 10/13/2017.(mpl) (jao).
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
BP West Coast Products LLC,
Case No.: 12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
Plaintiff,
9
10
v.
11
ORDER FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS
Crossroad Petroleum, Inc. et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14
AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED
ACTIONS
15
[ECF No. 631]
This matter is before the Court on a pending Order to Show Cause for failure to
16
comply with Section II.C. of Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules
17
and certain of this Court’s orders, all of which require all parties to appear in person at
18
19
20
21
22
mandatory settlement conferences. (ECF No. 631.) After careful review of the record, the
facts, and the applicable law, the Court hereby ORDERS that monetary sanctions be paid
by the following four defendants for failure to appear at the Mandatory Settlement
Conference held on October 18 and 19, 2016: (1) NP Petroleum Corp.; (2) Payam Sahih;
(3) William Kirmiz; and (4) Sahar Kirmiz.1
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
By separate order, this Court recommends terminating sanctions against 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–Behzad Kianmahd, Nader Sahih, Rajesh Arora, Basel Hassounch, and
Parshotam S. Kamboj. (ECF Nos. 627; 628; 631.) This order is limited to the defendants against whom
monetary sanctions are appropriate–Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and
Sahar Kirmiz.
1
12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
1
BACKGROUND
2
As pled in the operative Fifth Amended Complaint, Defendant NP Petroleum Corp.
3
was the operator and franchisee of the gasoline service station located at 14114 Vanowen
4
St., Van Nuys, California 91405 (Facility No. 9633); Defendant Payam Sahih (along with
5
Defendant Nader Sahih) executed a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally
6
guaranteeing the obligations of Defendant NP Petroleum Corp. with respect to its Franchise
7
Agreements with Plaintiff; and Defendants William Kirmiz and Sahar Kirmiz executed
8
a Franchise Agreement Guaranty, personally guaranteeing the obligations of Defendant
9
Parshotam S. Kamboj with respect to his Franchise Agreement with BPWCP. (ECF No.
10
296-3 at ¶¶42, 57, 58.)
11
District Judge Sammartino’s December 14, 2015 and May 2, 2016 orders recount
12
the “repeated discovery misconduct” of Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih,
13
William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz, which resulted in the district court granting in part
14
Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions.2 (ECF Nos. 478; 498.) These defendants were among
15
the defendants referred to as “Motion 3 Defendants” who violated multiple court orders,
16
including a May 19, 2015, order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (ECF No.
17
404); a May 28, 2015, order granting in part another of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, (ECF
18
No. 411); a June 2, 2015, order granting yet another of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, (ECF
19
No. 421); and/or a July 7, 2015, Minute Order directing the parties to meet and confer
20
regarding the Motion 3 Defendants’ non-compliance with the Court’s discovery orders,
21
(ECF No. 436).3 (ECF Nos. 448-11; 478 at 3.) The district court explicitly warned these
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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,
but denied Plaintiff’s request for default and dismissal against Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam
Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz (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
2
2
12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
1
defendants that failure to comply with discovery orders would result in terminating
2
sanctions. (ECF No. 478 at 16-17 (“the Court hereby GIVES NOTICE . . . that further
3
failure to comply with discovery orders or to meaningfully participate in discovery, even
4
absent an order to compel, SHALL result in entry of default judgment against them and
5
dismissal of their counterclaims pursuant to Rule 37(b)”).)
6
Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt held the first mandatory settlement conference
7
involving these defendants on June 8, 2016. Although many defendants failed to appear
8
or arrived more than an hour late, Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William
9
Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz all attended the June 8, 2016 mandatory settlement conference,
10
and thus, were not among the absent or late defendants. 4 (ECF Nos. 548; 550.)
11
Subsequently, this Court held another mandatory settlement conference on October
12
18 and October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 627; 628.) Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam
13
Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz (among others) failed to appear.
14
Accordingly, on October 21, 2016, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause in this case
15
instructing Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar
16
Kirmiz that “on or before November 4, 2016,” they “SHALL each file a separate sworn
17
declaration informing the Court why they did not comply with Section II.C. of Magistrate
18
Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s Civil Chambers Rules and this Court’s this Court’s orders.” (ECF
19
No. 631 (emphasis in original).) Defendants never filed a declaration (or any written
20
response) as required by the Court’s October 21, 2016 Order to Show Cause. (See ECF
21
No. 675.) Thus, this Court took the matter under submission without oral argument. (Id.)5
(Id.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
on June 8, 2016. (See ECF Nos. 531; 532.) Of those thirty-six, twenty-eight received sanctions. (ECF
No. 550.)
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
3
12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
“All federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their
3
cases and courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders. . . . As a function
4
of this power, courts can dismiss cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award attorney’s
5
fees and assess fines.” Aloe Vera of Am., Inc. v. United States, 376 F.3d 960, 964–65 (9th
6
Cir. 2004). “Sanctions are an appropriate response to ‘willful disobedience of a court
7
order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for
8
oppressive reasons.’” Id. (citing Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001)); see
9
also Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that a
10
“determination that an order was disobeyed is entitled to considerable weight” because
11
the judge issuing the order “is the best equipped to assess the circumstances of the non-
12
compliance” (quotation marks and citations omitted)). “Failure of counsel or of any party
13
to comply . . . . with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court of
14
any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the
15
court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of
16
contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser
17
sanctions.” CivLR 83.1.a.
18
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
19
Defendants NP Petroleum Corp., Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz
20
failed to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October
21
18-19, 2016. They have not provided any explanations for their failures to appear, much
22
less demonstrated that their failures to appear were for reasons outside their control. The
23
Court concludes monetary sanctions should issue against Defendant NP Petroleum Corp.,
24
Payam Sahih, William Kirmiz, and Sahar Kirmiz as follows:
25
26
27
28
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.
4
12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
1
1.
On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant NP Petroleum Corp. is
2
ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to the Miscellaneous
3
Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States
4
Treasury and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its
5
determination that $500.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered
6
Defendant’s failure to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held
7
on October 18-19, 2016, its prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 404; 411;
8
421; 436; 478; 498), and its failure to timely pay court-ordered monetary sanctions owed
9
to Plaintiff (see ECF Nos. 576; 652).
10
2.
On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant Payam Sahih is ORDERED
11
to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $500.00 to the Miscellaneous Fines,
12
Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States Treasury
13
and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its determination
14
that $500.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered Defendant’s failure to
15
appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 18-19,
16
2016, Defendant’s prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 411; 421; 436; 478;
17
498), and Defendant’s failure to timely pay court-ordered monetary sanctions owed to
18
Plaintiff (see ECF Nos. 576; 652).
19
3.
On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant William Kirmiz is
20
ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to the Miscellaneous
21
Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States
22
Treasury and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its
23
determination that $400.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered
24
Defendant’s failure to appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held
25
on October 18-19, 2016 and Defendant’s prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos.
26
404; 411; 421; 436; 478; 498).
27
28
5
12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
1
4.
On or before November 10, 2017, Defendant Sahar Kirmiz is ORDERED
2
to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400.00 to the Miscellaneous Fines,
3
Penalties and Forfeitures, Not Otherwise Classified, fund of the United States Treasury
4
and file a Notice of Payment in this case. See CivLR 83.1. In making its determination
5
that $400.00 is an appropriate sanction, the Court has considered Defendant’s failure to
6
appear for the court-ordered Mandatory Settlement Conference held on October 18-19,
7
2016 and Defendant’s prior conduct and sanctions orders (see ECF Nos. 404; 411; 421;
8
436; 478; 498).
9
Finally, the Court hereby GIVES NOTICE to all sanctioned Defendants that future
10
failure to comply with Court orders, including failure to comply with this Order, SHALL
11
result in a recommendation from this Court that judgment be entered against them and any
12
of their counterclaims be dismissed.
13
Dated: October 13, 2017
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
12cv665-JLS-JLB Lead Case
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?