Bill L. Lowe; Robert B. Morgan; Mark A. Harms v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., et al.
Published: Sep. 19, 1998 | Result Date: Mar. 13, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 977154 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
San Francisco Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Eric B. Fastiff
(Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP)
Michael A. Caddell
(Caddell & Chapman)
Richard M. Heimann
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP)
Defendant
Andrew T. Mortl
(Glynn & Finley)
Facts
The trial court certified a plaintiff class in this case consisting of approximately 4,500 Chevron gas station lessee-dealers who reside throughout the United States. Only 37 class members opted out of the class before trial. The plaintiffs contended that dealers had been misled to believe they could reduce the rent they paid for Chevron service stations by increasing the volume of gasoline they sold. Instead, they claimed, Chevron had included a secret "rent/occupancy" charge in the prices it charged dealers for gasoline. The plaintiff further contended that this charge was 3 cents per gallon until September 1989, and then was increased to 5 cents per gallon. They claimed that they were entitled to recover this overcharge. Defendant Chevron contended that plaintiffs had not been overcharged or misled in anyway. At trial, the plaintiffs pursued class claims against the defendant based on misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violation of the California Business and Professions Code.
Settlement Discussions
Prior to trial, the plaintiffs made a settlement offer. According to the defense it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. Chevron rejected the offer and never made a counteroffer. Per plaintiff, Chevron rejected plaintiffs' mediation offer.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed compensatory damages of approximately $1.25 billion, prejudgment interest of approximately $500 million and punitive damages of $1 billion.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years after the case was filed. The plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action was dismissed on Chevron's motion for summary judgment. At the class action trial, plaintiffs presented the live testimony of four former Chevron dealers, including the named plaintiffs, and the videotape testimony of three other dealers. They also used the videotape depositions of 14 Chevron employees, whose testimony was designated by both parties, and called one other Chevron employee to testify live. In addition, the plaintiffs presented the testimony of five experts - three economists and two accountants. Chevron offered the live testimony of four Chevron employees, one dealer and one expert witness, an economist. Chevron also presented the videotape depositions of three former dealers and read the deposition of a third party witness. Chevron's case took just 1+ weeks to present although, per plaintiff, Chevron counter-designated substantial videotape deposition testimony of the witnesses. Plaintiffs called by videotape, all of which was played in plaintiffs' case-in-chief. The jury returned a defense verdict on the fraud causes of action on Friday, March 13. Plaintiffs' Business and Professions Code claims were argued, and the trial judge issued a decision in Chevron's favor. Post-trial motions and appeals are expected to follow.
Deliberation
one day (per defendant) 2½ days per (plaintiff)
Length
approximately two months
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390