Ben & Jerry's Franchising, Inc, et al v. Mehrdad Porghavami, et al, No. 09-17826 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 04 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BEN & JERRY S FRANCHISING, INC., a Vermont corporation; BEN & JERRY S HOMEMADE, INC., a Vermont corporation, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants - Appellees, No. 09-17826 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02599-JAMKJM MEMORANDUM * v. MEHRDAD PORGHAVAMI, Defendant-counter-claimant Appellant, and MPA GROUP, INC., Defendant, v. WONDER ICE CREAM LLC, Counter-defendant - Appellee. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mehrdad Porghavami appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in this diversity action concerning an ice cream franchise. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291. We review de novo the district court s determination of standing and its grant of summary judgment. Del. Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 523 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to Ben & Jerry s and Wonder Ice Cream on Porghavami s counterclaims because Porghavami lacked standing in his individual capacity to assert claims for alleged wrongs against the franchise corporation. See Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd., 601 F.2d 429, 439-40 & n.13 (9th Cir. 1979) (president and sole stockholder of franchise corporation lacked standing in his individual capacity to assert contract claims, even though he had personally guaranteed corporation s obligations). ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 09-17826 The district court properly granted summary judgment to Ben & Jerry s on its claims to recover $12,757 from Porghavami because the undisputed evidence showed that neither Porghavami nor the franchise corporation paid for the received ice cream products, and Porghavami personally guaranteed to Ben & Jerry s the obligations of the franchise corporation. See Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 881, 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (elements of unjust enrichment are receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another ). Porghavami s remaining contentions, including those concerning mediation and the alleged failure to demand payment, are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 3 09-17826

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.