UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 23, 2012
BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC,
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS,
CROSSROAD PETROLEUM, INC. ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS,
THRIFTY OIL CO.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND/OR INTERIM EQUITABLE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE PMPA AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH FRAP RULE 8 (ECF Nos. 46, 48) AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS
Presently before the Court is the Franchisees' Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Injunctive Relief and/or Interim Equitable Relief Pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2801, et seq., and in Compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, (ECF No. 46), and Crossroad Petroleum's motion for the same, (ECF No. 48). The Court denied the Franchisees' and Crossroad's motions for temporary restraining orders ("TRO") in an Order dated April 19, 2012. (Order, ECF No. 43) The Franchisees and Crossroad immediately filed Notices of Appeal, (ECF Nos. 45, 47), and followed up with the instant renewed requests for injunctive relief and a stay pending appeal of the Court's Order denying their prior request.
The motions are DENIED. The Court has already declined to issue a TRO in this matter. The Court will not reconsider its prior Order, and the moving parties have not given any basis for the Court to do so. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (indicating that reconsideration of a prior order is "appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law"). The Court declines to give the Franchisees yet another bite at the apple*fn1 ; their recourse now is before the appellate court.
To the extent the Franchisees are requesting a stay pending their appeal of this Court's Order, that request is also DENIED. The requested stay would be tantamount to issuing the exact relief the Court has already declined to issue, as the Franchisees apparently recognize. (Franchisees' Emergency Mot. 9, ECF No. 46 ("Although it might seem ironic that the Court should grant injunctive relief awaiting the appeal of the Court's denial of injunctive relief awaiting the appeal of the Court's denial of injunctive relief, none-the-less such is the case."); Crossroad's Emergency Mot. 5, ECF No. 48 (same))
IT IS SO ORDERED.