D. Arizona. Offen Petroleum LLC v. L&J Express LLC, No. CV-25-00061-TUC-JCH (2026)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Arizona (AZ)
Court
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Offen Petroleum LLC, Plaintiff, v. L&J Express LLC, et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 295207Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Arizona.Offen Petroleum LLC, Plaintiff,v.L&J Express LLC, et al., Defendants.No. CV-25-00061-TUC-JCH (EJM)|02/04/2026ORDER*1 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich'sReport and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 126) onDefendant Midnight Sun Logistics, LLC's (“Midnight Sun”)Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 24),1Defendant Texas Fueling Services, Inc.’s (“Texas Fueling”)Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”)12(b)(6) (Doc. 43), and Defendant Global Companies LLC's(“Global Companies”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc.45). Judge Markovich recommends: (1) denying MidnightSun's motion, (2) granting in part the motions of TexasFueling and Global Companies and dismissing Plaintiff'sNegligence Claim but denying the remainder of the motions.(Doc. 126 at 1, 25–26.) No party objected to the R&R. (Seegenerallydocket.)A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R denovo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of aparty's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See UnitedStates v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). The advisory committee's notes to Rule 72(b) statethat, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need onlysatisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of therecord in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistratejudge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734,739 (7th Cir. 1999).After independent review, the Court is satisfied that JudgeMarkovich's recommendation is sound. The R&R correctlyapplies the three-part test for determining specific personaljurisdiction under Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 126 at 6–13.)The R&R also correctly applies the Rule 8(a) plausibilitystandard for analyzing motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009), and Arizonalaw when analyzing Plaintiff's state law claims for unjustenrichment and negligence, see Albano v. Shea HomesLtd. P'ship, 634 F.3d 524, 530 (9th Cir. 2011); Air-SeaForwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 186 (9thCir. 1989). (Doc. 126 at 13–24.) Finally, the R&R correctlyapplies the Rule 12(e) unintelligibility standard for a motionfor a more definite statement. (Doc. 126 at 25.) As such, theCourt will adopt the R&R in full.*2 Accordingly,IT IS ORDERED:(1) Adopting in full the R&R (Doc.126).(2) Denying Defendant Midnight Sun Logistics, LLC'sMotion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 24).(3) Granting in part and denying in part DefendantTexas Fueling Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant toFederal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 43). The Court'spartial dismissal is without prejudice.(4) Granting in part and denying in part Defendant GlobalCompanies LLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 45).The Court's partial dismissal is without prejudice.(5) Granting Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint as to theNegligence Claim.(6) Withdrawing the referral to Magistrate Judge Eric J.Markovich. All future filings in this case shall be designated:CV-25-00061-TUC-JCH.Dated this 4th day of February, 2026.
Offen Petroleum LLC, Plaintiff, v. L&J Express LLC, et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 295207Footnotes1The Court notes that Midnight Sun's Motion cites to a nonexistent case, contains quoted materials that donot appear in the cited cases, and, in more than one instance, includes case citations that do not support thespecific explanatory phrase presented alongside the citation. (Doc. 24 at 5–8.) This is your one warning. AnyCounsel's failure to confirm the existence of, as well as the accuracy and veracity of a case or other legalcitation is a potential ground for sanctions under Rule 11. See, e.g., Mavy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,No. CV-25-00689-PHX-KML (ASB), 2026 WL 91483, at **6–8 (D. Ariz. Jan. 13, 2026); Dodge v. FirstServiceResidential Arizona LLC, No. CV-24-01550-PHX-SMM, 2025 WL 3653164, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 17, 2025)(compiling cases).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access