Transbay Auto Serv. v. Chevron, No. 13-15439 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseChevron and Transpay dispute a multi-million dollar purchase of a gasoline service station in San Francisco. Chevron argued that the station's $2.375 price constituted a bona fide offer under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2802(b)(3)(D)(iii), but Transbay rejected this argument and urged the court to preserve the jury verdict awarding it almost half a million dollars as compensation for overpayment. At issue was whether the district court erred in excluding at trial a third-party appraisal of the property that valued it significantly higher than either of the appraisals commissioned by the parties. The court used the possession plus test and held that when a party acts in conformity with the contents of a document - e.g., by giving an independent appraisal to a lender in support of accomplishing its objective to secure a commercial loan - such an action constitutes an adoption of the statements contained under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) even if the party never reviewed the document’s contents; such an action constitutes an adoption even if the third-party never itself uses or relies on the document; and where, however, a party forwards a document while acting as a mere messenger, this does not constitute an adoption. In this case, the PSG Appraisal - the only third-party appraisal available - values the property higher than any other appraisal and remarkably higher than any other going concern appraisal. Because the court cannot say with any degree of confidence that had the jury been presented with the PSG Appraisal, it would have come to the same conclusion, the court concluded that the evidentiary error merits a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed, vacated, and remanded.
Court Description: Rules of Evidence / Hearsay. Reversing the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in an action under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, the panel held that certain evidence was not hearsay and should have been admitted as an adoptive statement. The district court awarded the plaintiff almost half a million dollars as compensation for overpaying for a gasoline service station. The defendant contended that the station’s $2.375 million price tag constituted a “bona fide offer” under the Act. The panel held that a third-party appraisal of the property that valued it higher than either of the appraisals commissioned by the parties was not hearsay, and should TRANSBAY AUTO SERVICE V. CHEVRON USA 3 have been admitted into evidence as an adoptive statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B). Using the “possession plus” test, the panel held that when a party acts in conformity with the contents of a document¯e.g., by giving an independent appraisal to a lender in support of accomplishing its objective to secure a commercial loan¯such an action constitutes an adoption of the statements contained therein even if the party never reviewed the document’s contents. The panel further held that such an action constitutes an adoption even if the third party never itself uses or relies on the document. Where, however, a party forwards a document while acting as a mere messenger, this does not constitute an adoption. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. Dissenting, District Judge Piersol wrote that the possession plus rule had not been adopted in this circuit at the time of trial and should not be applied retroactively.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.