Mark Dedvukaj; Dedvukaj, Inc. v. Equilon Enterprises, L.l.c.

*The Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District
of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0379n.06
Filed: May 11, 2005
No. 04-1284
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARK DEDVUKAJ; DEDVUKAJ, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
EQUILON ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: DAUGHTREY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; SARGUS, District Judge.*
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-appellants Mark Dedvukaj and
Dedvukaj, Inc. bought a service station franchise in Michigan in 1998 and entered into a franchise
agreement with Shell for its operation. At some point thereafter, defendant-appellee Equilon, an
affiliate of Shell, assumed the franchise agreement from Shell. In 2001, the service station began
experiencing financial difficulties. Dedvukaj, Inc. fell behind in payments to Equilon and also
stopped selling gasoline for the entire month of October 2001. Equilon terminated the franchise
agreement with Dedvukaj, Inc. in November 2001. The plaintiffs brought suit against Equilon,
alleging a violation of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., and
advancing claims for breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and

-- 1 of 2 --

Dedvukaj v. Equilon Enterprises, L.L.C., No. 04-1284
- 2 -
conversion. Equilon subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed a
response and attached to that response the affidavit of Nikola Dedvukaj. Equilon moved to strike
the affidavit because Nikola Dedvukaj never appeared for his deposition and the plaintiffs failed to
respond to an interrogatory seeking information regarding his whereabouts. The district court
granted Equilon’s motion to strike the affidavit and also granted summary judgment to Equilon on
all counts.
After careful consideration of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the statements made
at oral argument, we conclude that the district court’s opinion thoroughly analyzed all the issues and
appropriately applied the relevant law to the facts of this case. Any further discussion by this court
would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
decision to strike the affidavit and to grant summary judgment to Equilon for the reasons stated in
its opinion. See Dedvukaj v. Equilon Enters., L.L.C., 301 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

-- 2 of 2 --