Bravo Energy Trading, N.A. v. Shell Oil Co.

MEMORANDUM *

Bravo Energy Trading, N.A., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Shell Oil Co. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not detail them here except as necessary.

As to whether Bravo was undercompensated as a result of Shell’s negligence, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Bravo claims that the district court erred in not applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Findings of causation, or lack thereof, are reviewed for clear error. See Reber v. United States, 951 F.2d 961 (9th Cir.1991). State res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies in diversity cases. See Woodworkers Tool Works v. Byrne, 191 F.2d 667 (9th Cir.1951). Because Bravo has not shown that the observed decrease in oil quality could only have been caused by Shell’s negligence, see Bedford v. Re, 9 Cal.3d 593, 597 , 108 Cal.Rptr. 364 , 510 P.2d 724 (1973), the failure to apply the res ipsa doctrine was not clear error.

Bravo claims it was entitled to the benefit of burden shifting. The district court’s allocation of the burden of proof is a legal determination that we…