Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises

<html> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <title>Filed 12/12/05</title> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Filed 12/12/05 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none'> <tr> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> JERRY'S SHELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents. </td> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> B174260 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC271208) </td> </tr> </table> APPEAL from a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">judgment and an order of the Superior Court</a> of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed. Bleau, Fox & Fong, Thomas P. Bleau, and Nikki Fong for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Fulbright & Jaworski, Richard R. Mainland, and Dinh Ha for Defendants and Respondents. The underlying case was dismissed by the trial court as a sanction for repeated failure to respond to discovery and comply with discovery orders. Several months after terminating sanctions were issued, appellants sought to revive the litigation through a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">motion for relief from default or dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b))</a>. The court denied the motion. We conclude that dismissal was the result of an intentional strategic decision on the part of appellants' counsel, and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Complaint Appellants Jerry's Shell and 21 others,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> brought suit against Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business as (dba) Shell Oil Products US (Equilon) and certain individuals.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> The complaint <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">essentially alleged that Equilon</a>, a joint enterprise between Shell and Texaco, developed a plan to convert independent franchise dealers' stations into company-operated stations or put them in the hands of the individual defendants, who were said to be â€

Jerry&#39;s Shell v. Equilon Enterprises

Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises