Scottsdale Gas Company LLC v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] Scottsd ale Gas Company LLC, ) No. CV-19-05291-PHX-SPL ) [9] ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) [11] ) Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company ) 12 LLC, et al., ) 13 ) ) Defendants. 14 ) 15 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for a Writ of Restitution Returning 16 Premises to Defendants and Evicting Plaintiff (Doc. 31), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 40), 17 and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 44). Additionally, before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to 18 Construe Their Motion for Writ of Execution as a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 19 (Doc. 49), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 50), and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 51).1 For the 20 following reasons, both motions will be denied. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff operates a retail convenience store and gas station located in Scottsdale, 23 Arizona (the “Property”). (Doc. 1 at 1) In 2013, Defendant Treasure assigned its leasehold 24 interest in the Property to Plaintiff. (Doc. 1 at 2) On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the 25 Complaint, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices [26] 27 1 Because it would not assist in resolution of the instant issues, the Court finds the pending motions suitable for decision without oral argument. See LRCiv. 7.2(f); Partridge [28] v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801-07 . (Doc. 1) Defendants filed an Answer and Countercomplaint on 2 October 23, 2019. (Doc. 18) On December 11, 2019, Defendants filed an amended 3 Countercomplaint, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith 4 and fair dealing, declaratory judgment, forcible entry and detainer, and injunctive relief. 5 (Doc. 26) On February 12, 2020, Defendants filed a motion requesting the Court to issue a 6 temporary restraining order without notice and a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 30) 7 Defendants argued that Plaintiff had violated the parties’ agreement by changing the 8 signage and selling off-branded gasoline at the Property. (Doc. 30) The Court denied both 9 requests. (Docs. 32, 37) Also on February 12, 2020, Defendants filed the Motion for a Writ 10 of Restitution Returning Premises to Defendants and Evicting Plaintiff. (Doc. 31) On May 11 5, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for substitute of counsel. (Doc. 48) The new counsel 12 then filed the Motion to Construe the Motion for Writ of Execution as a Motion for Partial 13 Summary Judgment on June 3, 2020. (Doc. 49) The Court addresses each motion in turn. 14 II. Legal Standard 15 Under Arizona law, a writ of restitution may be issued only after the entry of 16 judgment finding a party guilty of forcible detainer. A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). Forcible detainer 17 occurs when a landlord makes a written demand to deliver possession of the property and 18 the person occupying the property refuses. A.R.S. § 12-1173. Arizona forcible detainer 19 statutes “apply only when the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship.” United Effort 20 Plan Tr. v. Holm, 101 P.3d 641, 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). In a forcible detainer action, if 21 the underlying landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, that dispute must first be resolved 22 in a general civil action. Colonial Tri-City Ltd. P’ship v. Ben Franklin Stores, Inc., 880 23 P.2d 648, 653 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). 24 III. Discussion 25 A. Motion for Writ of Restitution 26 Defendants assert that they are entitled to possession of the Property pursuant to 27 Arizona Revised Statute (“A.R.S.”) § 12-1178(A) because Plaintiff has committed a 28 material breach of the lease assignment agreement. (Doc. 31 at 2-4) Defendants argue that 1 Plaintiff’s recent action of selling off-branded gasoline at the Property is “unequivocally 2 violative of the reasonable and material provisions of the franchise agreement between the 3 parties, putting Defendants’ right to evict [Plaintiff] beyond dispute.” (Doc. 31 at 4) 4 Defendants argue that the Court must find Plaintiff guilty of forcible entry and detainer and 5 issue a writ of restitution to return possession of the Property back to Defendants. (Doc. 31 6 at 6) 7 In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to possession of the 8 property. (Doc. 40 at 2) Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’ motion is premature 9 because issues of legal entitlement to the property and terms of the parties’ agreement are 10 all interrelated issues at the core of this case. (Doc. 40 at 2-5) 11 Here, Defendants do not assert to be in a landlord-tenant relationship with Plaintiff. 12 To the contrary, the parties agree that non-party National Retail Properties LP is the 13 landlord of the property. (Docs. 1 at 1-2; 26 at 8) Therefore, Defendants are not entitled to 14 a writ of restitution pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). United Effort Plan Tr., 101 P.3d at 15 645 (Arizona forcible detainer statutes “apply only when the parties have a landlord-tenant 16 relationship.”). 17 B. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 18 On June 3, 2020, Defendants submitted a second motion requesting the Court treat 19 their Motion for Writ of Restitution as one for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 49) 20 Defendants request that the Court use its inherent authority under Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 56(e) and (f) to decide their arguments under a summary judgment standard and 22 consider additional supplemental legal authority. (Doc. 49 at 1) Specifically, Defendants 23 concede that the parties do not have a landlord-tenant relationship, and request that the 24 Court consider Defendants’ arguments under A.R.S. §§ 12-1251(A) and -1255(B). (Doc. 25 49 at 2-3) Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request and argues that the Motion for Writ of 26 Restitution does not comply with the motion for summary judgment requirements found in 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Local Rule 56.1. (Doc. 50 at 2) 28 The dispositive motion deadline in this case ended on March 17, 2020. (Doc. 25) Here, Defendants are asking the Court to consider a new dispositive motion based on a 2| different legal theory. In addition, Defendants are effectively asking the Court to amend the Countercomplaint and disregard their allegation of entitlement to the Property pursuant 4| to A.R.S. § 12-1171. (Doc. 26 at 7-9) In its discretion, the Court declines to consider the 5 | new arguments raised by Defendants. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Writ of Restitution (Doc. 31) and 8 | Motion to Construe Their Motion for Writ of Execution as a Motion for Partial Summary 9 | Judgment (Doc. 49) are denied. 10 Dated this 25th day of June, 2020. [11] 12 Honorable Teven P. Légan B United States District Judge