Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Frydoun Sheikhpour

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Frydoun Sheikhpour

Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Frydoun Sheikhpour

Plaintiff:	Chevron U.S.A. Inc
Defendant:	Frydoun Sheikhpour
Case Number:	2:2007cv04451
Filed:	July 10, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County:	Contra Costa
Presiding Judge:	Philip S. Gutierrez
Presiding Judge:	Alicia G. Rosenberg
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Franchise
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 11, 2011	Filing 181 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Prohibiting Defendant from Removing Underground Storage Tanks by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Prohibiting Defendant From Removing Underground Storage Tan ks; and (2) Defendant's Motion for an Order Clarifying Rights to Remove Personal Property. The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing p apers in support of these motions, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant is not entitled to remove the fuel tanks from the property and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.....Accordingly, based on the foregoing principles of contract interpretat ion and California law, the Court holds as follows: (1) The underground gasoline storage tanks presently located at the Manhattan Beach service station at issue (the "Property") are fixtures which stay with the Property as part of the parti es' repurchase agreement, rather than the "personal property" of Defendant Sheikhpour; and (2) Sheikhpour does not own, and is therefore prohibited from removing, any and all underground storage tanks presently located at the Property. re: 171 174 173 Motion (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (lw)
June 14, 2010	Filing 140 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez taking under submission 125 Motion to Enforce Settlement; denying 133 Ex Parte Application for Order of the Court Continuing Hearing Date upon Chevron's Motion to Enforce Settlement: B ased on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants' ex parte application for a continuance. However, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. The matter is hereby taken under submission, and the June 21, 2010 hearing is taken off calendar. (see document for further details) (bm)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 11, 2011

Filing 181 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Prohibiting Defendant from Removing Underground Storage Tanks by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Prohibiting Defendant From Removing Underground Storage Tan ks; and (2) Defendant's Motion for an Order Clarifying Rights to Remove Personal Property. The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing p apers in support of these motions, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant is not entitled to remove the fuel tanks from the property and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.....Accordingly, based on the foregoing principles of contract interpretat ion and California law, the Court holds as follows: (1) The underground gasoline storage tanks presently located at the Manhattan Beach service station at issue (the "Property") are fixtures which stay with the Property as part of the parti es' repurchase agreement, rather than the "personal property" of Defendant Sheikhpour; and (2) Sheikhpour does not own, and is therefore prohibited from removing, any and all underground storage tanks presently located at the Property. re: 171 174 173 Motion (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) (lw)

June 14, 2010

Filing 140 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez taking under submission 125 Motion to Enforce Settlement; denying 133 Ex Parte Application for Order of the Court Continuing Hearing Date upon Chevron's Motion to Enforce Settlement: B ased on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants' ex parte application for a continuance. However, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. The matter is hereby taken under submission, and the June 21, 2010 hearing is taken off calendar. (see document for further details) (bm)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Frydoun Sheikhpour
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chevron U.S.A. Inc
Represented By:	Kurt Osenbaugh
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Frydoun Sheikhpour
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?