BP Products North America Inc. v. Grand Petroleum, Inc.

Background

BP Products North America Inc. moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier ruling concerning PMPA preemption. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, and the court explained that the local rules require a party to identify a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or the court’s failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. A party may not simply repeat arguments already made.

BP’s Arguments and the Earlier Ruling

The court found that BP referred to the reconsideration standards but did not specifically explain why reconsideration was warranted. The court clarified that its earlier ruling did not hold that BP had alleged a fraud-in-the-formation theory. Instead, the court held that the material-modification provisions addressed the contract terms the parties had negotiated and did not concern the grounds or procedures for termination. The court also held that BP had offered no textual analysis supporting its preemption argument.

The court further stated that the party asserting preemption bears the burden, that the facts and law had not changed, and that BP still had not made a textual argument. The additional authorities BP cited were not new law and did not change the court’s analysis under binding Ninth Circuit authority.

Ruling

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied BP’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court stated that reconsideration was unlikely to change the result because it had found triable issues of fact concerning the lawfulness of the termination under the PMPA, and BP had not shown that it was entitled to summary judgment. The order terminated Docket No. 128.