Offen Petroleum LLC v. L&J Express LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Offen Petroleum LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
L&J Express LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00061-TUC-JCH (EJM)
ORDER
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Eric 	J. 	Markovich’s 	Report 	and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 126) on Defendant Midnight Sun Logistics, LLC’s
(“Midnight Sun”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 24),1 Defendant 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 Midnight Sun’s motion, (2) granting in part the motions of Texas Fueling and
Global Companies and dismissing Plaintiff’s Negligence Claim but denying the remainder
of the motions. (Doc. 126 at 1, 25–26.) No party objected to the R&R. (See generally
1 The Court notes that Midnight Sun’s Motion cites to a nonexistent case, contains quoted
materials that do not appear in the cited cases, and, in more than one instance, includes case
citations that do not support the specific explanatory phrase presented alongside the
citation. (Doc. 24 at 5–8.) This is your one warning. Any Counsel’s failure to confirm the
existence of, as well as the accuracy and veracity of a case or other legal citation 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. FirstService Residential Arizona LLC, No. CV-24-01550-PHX-SMM,
2025 WL 3653164, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 17, 2025) (compiling cases).
Case 4:25-cv-00061-JCH Document 128 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
docket.)
A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 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 a party’s right to de
novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b) state that,
“[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate
judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson
v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
After 	independent 	review, 	the 	Court 	is 	satisfied 	that 	Judge 	Markovich’s
recommendation is sound. The R&R correctly applies the three-part test for determining
specific personal jurisdiction 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)
plausibility standard for analyzing motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009), and Arizona law when analyzing Plaintiff’s state law
claims for unjust enrichment and negligence, see Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship,
634 F.3d 524, 530 (9th Cir. 2011); Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176,
186 (9th Cir. 1989). (Doc. 126 at 13–24.) Finally, the R&R correctly applies the Rule 12(e)
unintelligibility standard for a motion for a more definite statement. (Doc. 126 at 25.) As
such, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 126).
(2) 	Denying 	Defendant 	Midnight 	Sun 	Logistics, 	LLC’s 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 24).
(3) Granting in part and denying in part Defendant Texas Fueling Services, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 43). The
Case 4:25-cv-00061-JCH Document 128 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court’s partial dismissal is without prejudice.
(4) Granting in part and denying in part Defendant Global Companies 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 the Negligence 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.
Case 4:25-cv-00061-JCH Document 128 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3