Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 18

1

2
3

4
5

KURT OSENBAUGH (State Bar No. 106132) DEBORAH YOON JONES (State Bar No.1 18127) SAY AKA KARITANI (State Bar No. 240122) WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP 333 South HOQe Street, Sixteenth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-1000

Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 E-mail: kosenbaugh~wbcounsel.com
dj ones(qwbcounse1.com

6 7
8

skaritann~wbcounsel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC and ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
JOHN G. MICHAEL (State Bar No. 106107)

9 10
11

5260 North Palm Avenue, Fourth Floor Fresno, California 93704-2209

BAKER MANOCK & JENSEN P.C.

12
13

Facsimile: (559)432-5620

Telephone: (559) 432-5400

E-mail: bmj(fbakermanock.com
STTN ENTERPRISES, INC., NAZIM F AQUIRY AN,

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants

14
15

SAYED FAQUIRYAN, MAGHUL FAQUIRYAN, and AVA GLOBÀL ENTERPRISE, LLC

16 17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation,

19

Case No.: C07 04808 RS

20
21

JOINT REPORT OF PARTIES

Plaintiffs,
v.

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(f)
C;;C Date: January 9,2008

22
23

Time: 10:30 a.m.
Ctr: 4
Honorable Jeremy Fogel

24
25

STTN ENTERPRISES, INC., a California Col)oration' NAZIM FAQUIRYAN, an
individual; SAYED F AQUIR Y AN -h an

26 27
28

individual; and MAGHùL FAQUIKYAN, an individual; and AVA GLOBAL ENTERPRISE, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Defendants.

Filing Date: September 17,2007

1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 18

1

2
3

individual; SA YED F AQUIRY AN an individual; and MAGHùL F AQUIRY AN, an individual; and A VA GLOBAL

STTN ENTERPRISE~ INC'i a California Col)oration' NAZIM l' AQU RYAN, an

4
5

ENTERPRISE, LLC, a California limited liability company,
Counterclaimants,

6 7
8

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; an~; and ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANy, a Delaware Corporation,
Cross- Defendants.

9 10
11

12
13

TO THE HONORABLE JEREMY FOGEL:

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants BP West Coast Products

14
15

LLC ("BPWCP") and Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO"), and Defendants and

Counterclaimants STTN Enterprises, Inc., Nazim Faquiryan, Sayed Faquiryan,
Maghul Faquiryan, and A V A Global Enterprise, LLC (defendants collectively
referred to as, the "Defendants") (BPWCP, ARCO, and Defendants shall collectively

16 17
18

be referred to as, the "Parties") held the early meeting of counsel pursuant to Rule
26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following summarizes the Parties'
views of the matters required by Rule 26( f) and Local Rule 26- 1 :

19

20
21

I.

FACTUAL SUMMARY AND PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF THE CASE

22
23

A. Plaintiffs' Position
BPWCP sold ARCO-branded motor fuels to Defendant STTN
Enterprises, Inc. ("STTN") and allowed an am/pm mini market convenience store
franchise to be operated concurrently with the gasoline station through several written
franchise agreements. Defendants Sayed Faquiryan and Nazim Faquiryan each

24
25

26 27
28

individually guaranteed the obligations owed by STTN to BPWCP under these
franchise agreements.

Pursuant to the franchise agreements, BPWCP licensed to
1

10925133

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 18

1

STTN the right to use ARCO's trade names, trademarks, and service marks in
connection with the resale of ARCO-branded motor fuels and the operation of the
am/pm mini market convenience store; STTN paid a royalty for use of

2
3

this right.

4
5

In addition to the requirements for operating the station, the franchise
agreements also required STTN to complete a remodel or retrofit of the station within

6
7
8

nine (9) months of the commencement of the franchise relationship. To assist STTN

in complying with this "remodel and retrofit" requirement, BPWCP offered STTN a

special loan program to provide some funds specifically for completing constrction
and remodeling of its station and am/pm mini market store.

9
10
11

BPWCP and STTN entered into two such loan agreements (a Store Loan
Agreement and Gasoline Loan Agreement), whereby BPWCP agreed to loan STTN
the total sum of $475,000 to be used toward BPWCP-approved capital improvements

12
13

for the station. Defendants Sayed Faquiryan, Maghul Faquiryan (Sayed Faquiryan's
spouse), and Nazim Faquiryan each individually guaranteed the loan obligations owed

14
15

by STTN to BPWCP under the loan agreements. BPWCP funded and disbursed the

16
17
18

full amount of $150,000 for Defendants' benefit pursuant to the Store Loan
Agreement. BPWCP, however, did not disburse any funds under the Gasoline Loan

Agreement since STTN failed to provide sufficient financial documents, including

19

proof of any payment by STTN of any constrction-related expenditures, required
back-up invoices and/or lien releases, all of which are requirements of the Gasoline
Loan Agreement and related Disbursement Agreement.
On September 6, 2007, BPWCP terminated Defendants' service station

20
21

22
23

franchise due to STTN's failure to have any gasoline products available for sale to the

24
25

motoring public for at least 15 consecutive days, despite the fact that BPWCP sent

STTN a total of twelve Defaults for failure to offer all grades of gasoline for sale.
BPWCP's termination was also based upon STTN's failure to timely pay BPWCP for
gasoline products in a timely manner, incurring an outstanding balance of over

26 27 28

2
1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 4 of 18

1

$ 126,000, for gasoline product deliveries that are due and payable at the time of

2
3

delivery. Given defendants' long-standing debt owed to BPWCP for unpaid gasoline,

their failure to operate the Station and sell gasoline for at least 15 consecutive days,
and the numerous opportnities given by BPWCP to Defendants to cure the defaults,

4
5

the termination was effective immediately as it was not reasonable for BPWCP to
provide any additional notice to STTN.

6 7
8

STTN also defaulted on the Store Loan Agreement. Pursuant to the Store

Loan Agreement, STTN must repay the outstanding balance of the loan in full to
BPWCP within 30 days of the occurrence of an "Event of Default." The termination

9
10
11

of the franchise agreements (which occurred on September 5, 2007) is one such
"Event of Default." To date, STTN has failed and refused to pay the outstanding
balance due pursuant to the Store Loan Agreement.

12
13

Based upon these facts, BPWCP's First Amended Complaint seeks
Declaratory Relief under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, and actual and
liquidated damages for Breach of Contract under the franchise agreements, loan

14
15

16 17
18

agreements, and guaranties; Unified Judicial Foreclosure; Unjust Enrchment;

Common Count for Goods Sold and Delivered; and Violation of the California
Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

19

Furthermore, at the time BPWCP and ARCO filed their First Amended
Complaint, Defendants were violating Federally-registered trademarks, trade names

20
21

and service marks and using proprietary materials. Thus, BPWCP also asserted
claims based upon these violations and applied for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. Defendants, however, represented in wrting that the

22
23

24
25

trademark materials have since been removed and BPWCP withdrew its temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction papers.

26
27
28
3
10925133

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 5 of 18

1

B.

Defendants' Position
1.

2
3

Factual Summary

Plaintiffs BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC ("BPWCP") and the
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY ("ARCO") are refiners and distributors of

4
5

branded motor fuel in the State of California. STTN ENTERPRISES, INC.
("STTN"), operates a motor fuel retail station in Hollister, California. NAZIM FAQUIRYAN and SAYED FAQUIRYAN are shareholders of STTN and AVA

6 7
8

GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC ("AVA"). AVA owns the land on which STTN's

9 10
11

station operates. In addition, NAZIM, SAYED, and MAGHUL FAQUIRYAN
(Sayed's wife) signed as guarantors on some of the agreements between STTN and
Plaintiffs.

12
13

BPWCP and STTN entered into two franchise agreements on July 11,

2006. The purpose of these agreements is for STTN to operate an ARCO-branded
motor fuel station and AM/PM mini-market at 631 San Felipe Road, in Hollister,

14
15

California (the "Station"). STTN paid $70,000.00 as a franchise fee and agreed to
make periodic royalty payments for the right to operate the franchises.

16
17 18

After little more than one year, and after Defendants had spent over
$1,000,000 to remodel the Station to BPWCP's specifications, on September 6, 2007,

19

BP sent notice that it was termnating the franchise agreements. BPWCP further
stated that the termnation was effective immediately. The termination of franchise
agreements for the sale of branded motor fuels is governed by the Petroleum
Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2801, et seq. ("PMPA"). As a result of

20
21

22
23

rampant

abuse by refiners and distrbutors like BPWCP and ARCO, Congress enacted the
PMP A. The PMP A is designed to provide some degree of protection for franchisees

24
25

against the arbitrary and ruthless actions by refiners and distrbutors of branded motor

26 27
28

fueL. Accordingly, Congress requires all refiners and distributors to satisfy certain
substantive and procedural requirements before a franchise agreement can be legally

4
1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 6 of 18

1

terminated under the PMP A. Plaintiffs' compliance with these requirements is plainly

2
3

lacking this case. The remaining causes of action alleged by Plaintiffs all flow from
this ilegal termination.
Prior to July 2006, STTN, operated a Chevron-branded motor fuel station

4
5

at 631 San Felipe Road, in Hollister, California (the "Station"). STTN profitably

6 7
8

operated the station and enjoyed a good business relationship with Chevron. At some

point before May 2006, STTN was approached by employees of BPWCP, and/or
ARCO (collectively "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs asked to purchase the Station from STTN

9 10
11

or for STTN to brand the Station as an ARCO. STTN rejected the purchase offer and

agreed to re-brand the Station into an ARCO-branded station. To effectuate the
transition to an ARCO-branded motor fuel station, BPWCP offered STTN a self-

12
13

amortized loan package in the amount of $475,000. In essence, so long as STTN sold

a specified amount of product annually, a portion of the debt would deemed repaid
each year by BPWCP. On May 25,2006, BPWCP provided a Commitment Letter to
STTN in the sum of

14
15

$475,000.

16 17
18

On July 11, 2006, BPWCP and STTN entered into two franchise
agreements. The purpose of these agreements was for STTN to sell ARCO-branded

motor fuel as well as to operate an AM/M convenience store at the Station. The
agreements required STTN to be operating as an ARCO-branded motor fuel station by

19

20
21

April 1 1, 2007. The parties orally agreed that the Station would be operated as a "gas
only" station starting October 10, 2006, until the Mini Market was completed.
In order to comply with the constrction schedule promulgated by

22
23

BPWCP, STTN was forced to begin reconstrction on the Station immediately.

24
25

BPWCP worked closely with STTN throughout the constrction phase by approving
site plans, contractors, architects, and informng STTN of deficiencies. BPWCP also

26
27
28

knew that the Station was a re-brand, not a new, ground-up facility. STTN worked
diligently to satisfy all of BPWCP's requirements. Indeed, STTN spent of $790,000
5
1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 7 of 18

1

of its own funds to remodel the Station. BPWCP did not finalize its loan agreements
until February 12, 2007. The loan was to be disbursed according to the various

2
3

schedules accompanying the loan documents, including the proposed budget and the

4
5

disbursement schedule. Despite its close involvement with the process, and despite
having made a commitment to assist STTN in the constrction of the Station, BP
consistently refused to provide any loan funds to STTN.

6 7
8

As a result of BPWCP's breach of its obligations under the loan
agreements, while at the same time requiring STTN to continue constrction and
purchase motor fuel, STTN was unable to pay some of its contractors on time.

9 10
11

Mechanics liens were then filed by certain contractors. However, as of July 7, 2007,

STTN completely paid off all liens on the Station. Stil, BPWCP refused to comply
with the loan agreements. During this same time period, because of STTN's working
capital was tied up in constrction costs awaiting reimbursement from BPWCP,

12
13

14
15

STTN fell behind in its payments for gasoline delivery and was put on a cash-ondelivery basis.
BPWCP eventually paid $150,000.00 of

16 17
18

the loan in July 2007. However,

the remaining $250,000.00 of

the loan fuds then due were not disbursed by BPWCP.

STTN demanded disbursement of said funds to payoff the creditors of the project and

19

replenish its working capital, but BPWCP refused, claiming that it lacked all of the

20
21

required documents. STTN asked for clarification as to which documents were
missing, and BPWCP simply refused to inform STTN of the missing documents. At

22
23

the same time, BPWCP demanded that STTN continue to purchase gasoline. Being
forced to use its operating capital to satisfy the construction debts due to BPWCP's

24
25

refusal to disburse the loan, STTN asked that BPWCP enter into an escrow agreement

whereby STTN would place the remaining money due for fuel into escrow and
BPWCP would similarly place the loan fuds in escrow. BPWCP initially agreed to
this request, but later failed to place the loan funds in escrow without explanation.
6
1092513.3

26

27
28

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 8 of 18

1

Indeed, even as of August 31, 2007, BPWCP offered STTN reassurances that all the

2
3

information needed to fund the loans was in BPWCP's possession and the funds
would be disbursed soon.
On August 31, 2007, BPWCP sent seven notices of default to STTN,

4
5

each alleging that STTN failed to offer any grade of motor fuel for sale to the public

6 7
8

on a specified date. However, STTN sold 91 octane and diesel gasoline during the

relevant dates cited by BPWCP. Moreover, STTN could not sell 87 and 89 octane
gasoline for part of the relevant period because BPWCP refused to deliver any motor

9 10
11

fuel to the Station, despite STTN obtaining and offering a cashier's check to tender
upon delivery.

On September 6, 2007, BPWCP termnated the franchise agreement. In

12
13

so doing, it cited (1) STTN's failure to offer any grade of motor fuel to the motoring
public for a period of seven consecutive days and (2) STTN's failure to pay all sums

14
15

when due. Rather than give the 90 days notice that is tyically required under the
PMP A, and without any factual basis thereof, BPWCP cited risk of confusion to the
public and safety risks as justifyng an immediate termnation of the franchise

16
17 18 19

agreement. As such, the franchise relationship was allegedly termnated on
September 6, 2007.

On September 17 and 18, 2007, BPWCP sent multiple agents to "de-

20
21

brand" the Station. As part of the de-branding process, BPWCP removed, destroyed,

re-painted, or otherwise obliterated any registered trademark or proprietary

22
23

information belonging to BPWCP. STTN, while maintaining that the franchise
agreement was termnated ilegally, cooperated with BPWCP during the de-branding

24
25

process.

Curiously, while the de-branding was carred out over the two-day period

26 27
28

from September 17 to 18, BPWCP's complaint is that "(a)s of September 11, 2007,

the Station was still improperly displaying these Protected Marks..." some six days
7
1 0925 1 3.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 9 of 18

1

before the Station was de-branded. (emphasis added) Since the de-brand, Defendants

2
3

have continued to operate the Station, but as an independent station. Defendants are
not currently using or otherwise infringing any protectab1e marks.

4
5

Apparently dissatisfied with their own de-branding efforts, Plaintiffs filed

an Ex Parte Application for a TRO on October 18, 2007. They have subsequently
withdrawn that Application.
2.

6

7
8

Le2al Issues
a)
The propriety of Plaintiffs' and Counter-Defendants'

9
10
11

termination of the various agreements;
b) Whether Defendants and Counter-Claimants breached any
of

the agreements (which Defendants and Counter-Claimants deny);
c)

12
13

Any damages accruing as a result of Defendants' and

Counter-Claimants alleged defaults (which Defendants and Counter-Claimants deny);

14
15

d) Whether any trademark infrngement or dilution has
occurred (which Defendants and Counter-Claimants deny);

16 17
18

e) Whether Defendants and CounterC1aimants unfairly
competed with Plaintiffs or engaged in unfair business practices;
f)

Whether Plaintiffs are estopped from seeking enforcement

19

of the various agreements;
g)
Whether Plaintiffs are guilty of

20
21

unclean hands;

h)
i)

Whether Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages, if any;

22
23

Whether Plaintiffs waived any alleged breaches of the

various agreements;
j) Whether any of Plaintiffs' alleged damages were caused by

24
25

the actions of Plaintiffs or third parties;
k) Whether Defendants' conduct was privileged, excused or

26 27
28

justified;
8
1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 10 of 18

1

I) Whether Defendants were specifically authorized to display
any marks alleged to belong to Plaintiffs;

2
3

m) Whether Defendants signed the various agreements under
economic duress;

4
5

n)
and invalid;
0)

Whether Plaintiffs various marks are descriptive or generic
Whether Plaintiff s alleged trade and service marks are

6

7
8

functional;

9
10
11
of any of

p) prior breach;
q)

Whether Defendants' and Counter-Claimants' performance

the various agreements was excused by Plaintiffs' and Counter-Defendants'

12
13

Whether

Counter-Defendants

wrongfully

termnated

Counter-Claimants franchise agreements;
r)

14
15

Whether Counter-Defendants breached any of the various
Whether Counter-Defendants breached the covenant of good

agreements;
s)

16
17
18

faith and fair dealing contained in the various agreements;
t)

Whether Counter-Defendants commtted fraud;
Whether
Counter- Defendants

19

u)
misrepresen tations;
v)

made

negligent

20
21

The damages accruing to Counter-Claimants as a result of

22
23

Counter- Defendants' actions.

c.

Procedural Status
On September 18, 2007, BPWCP filed a complaint for damages arising

24
25

out of Defendants' breach of the Contract Dealer Agreement and am/pm Mini Market

26
27 28

Agreement governing their franchise relationship with BPWCP; for damages arising

out of Defendants' breach of the loan guaranties; and for declaratory relief under 15
9
1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 11 of 18

1

D.S.C. §2801, et seq., the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act ("PMPA"). On October

2
3

1 8, 2007, BPWCP and ARCO filed an amended complaint, adding new claims for
damages arising out of Defendants' trademark violations; for damages arising out of

4
5

Defendants' breach of the am/pm Mini Market Loan Agreement; and for judicial
foreclosure on Defendants' real property and personal property.

6 7
8

On December 6, 2007, Defendants filed their Answer to the First
Amended Complaint and Counterclaims for damages for wrongful termnation of their
service station franchise.

BPWCP's and ARCO's Answer to Defendants'

9 10
11

Counterclaim is due on January 4,2008.

II.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES
The Parties have discussed the exchange of the Rule 26(f) disclosures.

12
13

The Parties have agreed to exchange initial disclosures by January 7, 2008. The
Parties do not see a need to change the form or requirement for disclosures under Rule
26(a). The Parties acknowledge their respective continuing obligations to supplement

14
15

all information required to be disclosed as initial disclosures under the Rules.

16
17
18

III.

NOT A COMPLEX CASE
The Parties do not consider this a complex case that should be governed

by the rules set forth in the Manual for Complex Litigation.

19

IV.

DISCOVERY
A. Discoverv Plan

20
21

The Parties intend to propound interrogatories, requests for admissions,
and requests for production of documents upon each other. The Parties intend to

22
23

notice depositions of the persons with knowledge of the relevant facts in this matter.

24
25

The Parties do not believe that any immediate changes should be made to the rules
governing discovery except for those set forth below.

26 27
28

Anticipated subjects of discovery include BPWCP's termination of the
franchise agreement, the circumstances surrounding the loans offered by BPWCP to
10
i 0925 1 3.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 12 of 18

1

STTN, and any claims in the Complaint and Defendants' defenses and counterclaims.

2
3

BPWCP and ARCO believe that there is no need to change the
limitations on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendants want to take 12 depositions of

4
5

percipient witnesses, as opposed to the ten

depositions allowed under Rule 30(a)(2). BPWCP and ARCO disagree that extra
depositions need to be taken, given the straightforward facts of this case.

6 7
8

BPWCP, ARCO and the STTN Parties are not in agreement with respect

to the proposed discovery, motion and tral schedule and each of the Parties propose
the following:
1.

9 10
11

BPWCP's and ARCO's Proposed Schedule:

12
13

Description
Initial expert witness disclosure

Date
March 10,2008
March 21, 2008 March 21, 2008
May 19, 2008
June 2, 2008

14
15

Rebuttal expert witness disclosure Last day to amend pleadings or join parties

16 17 18

Expert and fact discovery cut-off

Motion cut-off

Pre-tral Conference Discussion
Date for Pre-trial Conference
Trial (5-7 days)

July 21, 2008 July 28, 2008
August 1 1, 2008

19

20
21

22
23

2.

The STTN Parties' Proposed Schedule:

24
25

Description
Percipient Witness and Initial expert
witness disclosure

Date
September 1, 2008

26 27
28

Rebuttal expert witness disclosure
11
1092513.3

October 1, 2008
JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 13 of 18

1

October 1, 2008

2
3

Ex ert and fact discove

cut-off

October 1, 2008

Motion (non-dispositive) cut-off

October 15,2008

4
5

Motion (dispositive) cut-off
Settlement cut-off

November 14,2008
J anua J anua J anua
1, 2009

6 7
8

Pre-tral Conference Discussion
Date for Pre-trial Conference
Trial (10 days)

15, 2009

22, 2009

February 16,2009

9
10
11

Furthermore, BPWCP and ARCO advise this Court that their counsel of
record will be engaged in trals on other matters on the following dates:

12
13

. March 11, 2008 for approximately 2 weeks (matter pending in the
Orange County Superior Court before The Honorable H. Warren

14
15

Siegel);
. April 25, 2008 for approximately 1 week (matter pending in the

16

Los Angeles County Superior Court before The Honorable Joseph
S. Biderman); and

17
18

. August 26,2008 for approximately 2 weeks (matter pending in the
Central Distrct of California before The Honorable Philip S.

19

20
21

Gutierrez).
Counsel for BPWCP and ARCO is also unavailable May 1 through May

22
23

25,2008.
Defendants advise this Court that their counsel of record will be engaged
in trials on other matters on the following dates:
. March 24, 2008 for approximately one week in Fresno County
Superior Court;

24
25

26
27
28

. May 27, 2008 for approximately one week in Fresno County

12
1092513.3

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 14 of 18

I

Superior Court;

2
3

. June 2, 2008 for approximately one week in Fresno County
Superior Court;

4
5

. June 23, 2008 for approximately one week in Merced County
Superior Court;

6
7
8

. August 27, 2008 for approximately three days in Fresno County

Superior Court; and
. October 6, 2008 for approximately one week in Fresno County
Superior Court.

9
10
11

B.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(O: Chan2es to Limitation on
Discoverv

12
13

BPWCP and ARCO believe that there is no need to change the
limitations on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

14
15

Defendants want to take 12 depositions of percipient witnesses, as opposed to the ten

depositions allowed under Rule 30(a)(2). BPWCP and ARCO disagree that extra
depositions need to be taken, given the facts of this case.
C.

16 17
18

Federal Rule of Civil Proce((ure 26~: Orders bv the Court Under
Rule 26(.£

19

At this time, the Parties do not see the need to request the Court to enter

20
21

any orders under Rules 26( c), Rule 1 6(b), or Rule 1 6( c), except that Defendants

request that the cour consider their request to raise the limit on the number of
depositions to 12. The Parties discussed the possibility of entering a protective order

22
23

regarding financial information.

24
25

v.

MOTION SCHEDULE

No motions are presently pending before this Court. The Parties
contemplate that, upon completion of sufficient discovery, they each may move for
summary judgment, to dismiss, or other dispositive motions.
13
1092513.3

26 27
28

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 15 of 18

1

VI.

POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT
The Parties are willing to engage in settlement discussions.

2
3

VII. TRIAL ESTIMATE
BPWCP and ARCO estimate that a tral in this action wil require 5-7
days. Defendants estimate that a trial in this action will require ten (10) days.

4
5

6 7
8

VIII. ADDITIONAL PARTIES
At this time, unless discovery yields new evidence, the Parties do not
anticipate the appearance of additional parties.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:

9
10
11

DATED: December 21,2007

12
13

KURT OSENBAUGH DEBORAH YOON JONES SAYAKA KARITANI WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP

14
15

16
17 18

19

DATED: December _,2007

JOHN G. MICHAEL

BAKER MANOCK & JENSEN, PC

20
21

22
23

24
25

John G. Michael Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants STTN ENTERPRISES INC., NAZIM FAQUIRYAN, SAYED FAQUIRYAN MAGHUL F AQUIRY AN, and AVA GLOBAL ENTERPRISE, LLC

26 27
28
14
JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES
1092513.3

PURUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(1)

FRI 11:38 .. .' QEC-21-2007 -- 5:07-cv-04808-JF - -'- _.... -._..Case".,,_.. AM _....,

Document 26

FAX NO, Filed 12/21/2007

Page 16 of 18

p, 02

I

VI.

POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT
The Pares are wiling to engage in settlement discussions.

2
3

4
5

VII. TRIAL ESTIMATE BPWCP and ARCa estimate that a mal in this action wil require 5-7
days. Defendants estimate that a tral in this action wil require ten (10) days.

6 7
8

VIII. ADDITIONAL PARTIES At this time, unless discovery yields new evidence, the Partes do not
anticipate the appearance of additional pares.

9

10
11

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
DATED: December -~ 2007

12 13

KURT OSENBAUGH DEBORAH YOON JONES

WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT;

SAYAK KARIT ANI

RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP

14
15

16
17

Deborah Y oon Jones Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendant~: BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC and ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY

18

19

DATED: December 2.1 , 2007

JOHN G. MICHAEL

BAKRMANO~
.J/~-/ . //
o 1 . lc ae

20
21

22
23

At meys for Defendants and Counterclaimants STf ENTERPRISES INC. NAZIM

24
25

FAOUIRY AN, SAYED FAQUIRY AN, MAGHUL F AQUIR Y AN, and A V A GLOBAl ENTERPRISE, LLC

26
27 28
14 JOINT REPORT OF THE P AR'nES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIY.l'ROC. R.ULE 16(f)
1092513.:1

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 17 of 18

PROOF OF SERVICE
1

2
3

I, Heather Thai, declare:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am
over the age of 18 and not aparty to the within action. My business address is

4
5

Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish LLP, 333 South Hope Street, Sixteenth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action in which this service is made.

6 7
8

On December 21, 2007, I served the document(s) described as JOINT REPORT OF PARTIES PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PROC. RULE 26(f) on the interested parties in this action by enclosing the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

~

9
10
1 1

BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice for the collection and the processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service. In the ordinary course of business, the correspondence would be

deposited with the United States Postal Service at 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90071 with postage thereon fully prepaid the same day on
which the correspondence was placed for collection and mailing at the tírm.

Following ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing with
the Uniteå States Postal Service such envelope at Weston, Benshoof, Rocffefort,

12
13

Rubalcava & MacCuish LLP, 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California
90071.

14
15

D

DELIVERY: I deRosited such envelo~ in a facility regularly maintained by D FEDERAL EXPRESS D UPS Ð Overnight Delivery r specify name of

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS D UPS NEXT DAY AIR D OVERNIGHT

16 17 18 19

courier or driver of D FEDERAL EXPRESS D UPS D OVERNIGHT DELIVERY rspecify name of service:) authorized to receive documents at Weston, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish LLP, 333 South Hope
Street, Los Angeles, California 90071 with delivery fees fully provided for.

service: ) with deliveiy fees fully provided for or delivered the envejoQe to a

D D

BY FACSIMILE: I telecopied a copy of said document( s) to the following
addressee(s) at the following number(s) in accordance with the written

confirmation of counsel in this action. California that the above is true and correct.
correct.
(F ederal)
rState) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

20
21

22
23

~

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

24
25

Executed on December 21, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.

0TY OJ +-i;; T/4'
Heather Thai

26
27 28

1092513.3

Case 5:07-cv-04808-JF

Document 26

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 18 of 18

1

2
3

BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC v. STTN ENTERPRISES, et al. United States District Court, Northern District Case No. C07 04808 RS

SERVICE LIST
John G. Michael, Esq.

4
5

6 7
8

Baker Manock & Jensen 5260 North Palm Avenue Fourth Floor Fresno, CA 93704

Attorney for Defendants and

ENTERPRISES INC., NAZIM FAQUIRYAN, SAYED FAQUIRYAN, MAGHUL F AQUIRY AN, and AVA GLOBAL ENTBRPRISE, LLC

Counterclaimants, STTN

Tel: (559) 432-5400
Fax: (55

g) 432-5620

9

10
1 1

12
13

14
15

16
17 18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26 27
28

1092513.3