Harara v. ConocoPhillips Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• dismissing declaratory relief claim where plaintiffs action was for damages was based on the defendants’ past conduct
• considering pre-offer appraisals, a post-offer bid by a third party, and the post-offer sale of the property to a third party
• “As the adverse action was based on plaintiff’s default, section 1691(d)(2) does not provide plaintiff with a basis for a claim.”
• “Specific performance is a form of contractual relief, not an independent claim.”
• “The evidence presented establishes that defendant decided not to renew the franchise in good faith and in the normal course of business. A reasonable trier of fact could not conclude otherwise, and Conoco is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).