Exxon Corporation v. Albert Hreische

21 F.3d 1112 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. EXXON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert HREISCHE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-56139. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 11, 1994. Decided April 8, 1994. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CV-92-0201-AHS, Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. BEFORE: BRIGHT, * WIGGINS, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Exxon sued Albert Hreische, a franchisee operator of an Exxon service station, seeking damages for breach of the service station lease agreement and a declaratory judgment regarding the company's right to terminate Hreische's franchise under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA). Hreische failed to timely answer Exxon's complaint, and the district court clerk entered a default in favor of Exxon under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). The district court subsequently entered a…