minerals beneath the station, as well as its inclusion of various waivers and restrictions in the Sales Agreement, raises a triable issue of fact as to whether its decision to sell the station was made in good faith and in the normal course of business. The court does not agree. No reasonable trier of fact could conclude that BP’s stated economic reasons for selling the station were pretextual simply because it retained the rights to the minerals be neath the station or because it included various waivers and restrictions in the Sales Agreement. Consequently, this argument does not alter the court’s view that it is appropriate to adjudicate whether BP’s non-renewal was made “in good faith and in the normal course of business” summarily. Cf. BP West Coast Products LLC, 447 F.3d at 664 (<HOLDING>). 2. Whether BP’s Offer to Sell the Station Was
holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused  violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution holding that evidence concerning the process by which bp obtained thirdparty bids on nonrenewed franchisees stations was not proof that the initial determination to sell was made in bad faith ie that the determination to sell involved selective discrimination procedural irregularities or was a pretext for nonrenewal recognizing that the sixth circuit has folded the absence of bad faith in under the inadvertence prong made the determination of whether there was evidence of a motive or intention to conceal the potential claim critical to a finding of bad faith and has held that in a particular case numerous attempts by the plaintiffs to cure an initial omission provided evidence that the omission was inadvertent not intentional recognizing that even where the plaintiff presents evidence of selective treatment failure to demonstrate malice or bad faith requires dismissal of the claim holding that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution