Shalabi et al v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al
Filing
70
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 67 Motion to Amend Judgment.(TG)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8 HATEM M SHALABI and PYRAMID
GOLD, INC.,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, et
12 al.,
13
CASE NO. C11-505 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Hatem M. Shalabi and Pyramid
16 Gold, Inc.’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion to alter or amend judgment (Dkt. 67). The Court has
17 considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the
18 remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
19
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
20
On March 1, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Atlantic
21 Richfield Company, BP Corporation North America, Inc., BP Products North America,
22 Inc., and BP West Coast Products, LLC’s (“Defendants”) in the Superior Court of the
ORDER - 1
1 State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce. Dkt. 2, Exh. A. On March 22,
2 2011, Defendants removed the action to this Court. Dkt. 1.
3
On September 19, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants
4 alleging fraud, fraud in a real estate transaction, and a violation of the Washington
5 Gasoline Dealer Bill of Rights Act (“GDBRA”), RCW Chapter 19.120. Dkt. 30.
6
On August 2, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 49.
7 On September 20, 2012, the Court granted the motion (Dkt. 65) and entered judgment in
8 favor of Defendants (Dkt. 66).
9
On October 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend judgment. Dkt.
10 67. On October 29, 2012, Defendants responded. Dkt. 68. On November 2, 2012,
11 Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 69.
12
II. DISCUSSION
13
As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs request that the Court “reconsider” its order
14 granting summary judgment. Dkt. 67. Plaintiffs’ implicit motion for reconsideration is
15 untimely and, therefore, the Court will consider the motion solely as a motion to alter or
16 amend the judgment.
17
Under Rule 59(e), a district court has discretion to alter or amend a judgment if
18 “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court
19 committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there
20 is an intervening change in controlling law.” Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563, 567 (9th
21 Cir. 2008) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)).
22
ORDER - 2
1
In this case, Plaintiffs argue that the “Court committed clear error and made an
2 initial decision that was manifestly unjust for” numerous reasons. Dkt. 67 at 2. First,
3 Plaintiffs argue that the Court granted summary judgment “on all of Plaintiffs’ GDBRA
4 claims on a ground not asserted in” Defendants’ motion. Id. This is a clear
5 misrepresentation because Defendants’ motion provided as follows:
6
7
plaintiffs have not and cannot point to a specific provision of the gasoline
dealer agreement that applies because this case has nothing to do with the
gasoline dealer relationship under GDBRA. This case deals with the sale of
real property, completely independent of the gasoline dealer relationship.
8
Dkt. 49 at 22. Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit and, therefore, the Court denies the
9
motion on this issue.
10
Second, Plaintiffs contend that the GDBRA applies to the real estate contract
11
between the parties because the GDBRA is applicable to “to any motor fuel franchise or
12
contract entered into . . . .” Dkt. 67 at 4–5. Defendants point out that the argument was
13
not brought to the Court’s attention in the initial briefing and Plaintiffs should not get a
14
second bite at the apple. Dkt. 68 at 5–7. The Court agrees. Moreover, the Court is not
15
convinced that Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statute is correct because, if it was, a
16
statute designed to protect franchisees would cover every contract between relevant
17
parties from a franchise-franchisee contract to the sale of a candy bar. If the Ninth
18
Circuit Court of Appeals accepts this argument on appeal, it would seem that the question
19
would have to be certified for clarification. In other words, the Court did not commit
20
clear error. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion on this issue.
21
22
ORDER - 3
1
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that there is a question of fact for trial on their common
2 law fraud claim and the element of justifiable reliance. Plaintiffs have failed to persuade
3 the Court that it committed clear error, or even manifest error, on this issue. The Court
4 provided a thorough analysis of the issue and relied on Washington cases that repeatedly
5 reject the “ignorant to what the agreements contained” theory of recovery. Dkt. 65 at 10–
6 12. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion on this issue as well.
7
III. ORDER
8
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend
9 judgment (Dkt. 67) is DENIED.
10
Dated this 15th day of November, 2012.
A
11
12
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 4
]]>
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?
