Unified Dealer v. Tosco Corp.

Full title: UNIFIED DEALER GROUP, a California nonprofit corporation; Radwan "Rod…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 3, 2000

216 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

216 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) UNIFIED DEALER GROUP, a California nonprofit corporation; Radwan "Rod" AKKY; Thomas Almond; Abdul Aryubi; Ray Bananzadeh; Kuljit Barn; Gurbachan Chahal; Harkewal Chahal; Dara Chao; Amratilal Chauhan; Larry Crawford; Richard Dutra; Fred Esfandiary; Joseph El Sineitti; Brent Failor; Nasrollah Farzinpour; Parviz Firoozye; Luis Lim Guerrero; Cyrous Hajian; Yadollah Hajian; Khosroin Hifai; K & J Autocare; Kazem Khorasani; Jason Kim; Stevan Lau; Jospeh Lowell; Ahmad Moheb Roghieh Mosaddad; Khalil Mokalla; Priscilla NG; Stephen NG; Thanh Pham Nguyen; Ahmad Ali Niakan; Deol Paul; Ajit Lally; Nancy Wayman-Marshall; David Norvell; Bhupinder Parmar; Evelyn Poquez; George Rustamzadeh; Ramzi Sebo; Rober Sellar; Michael Sellar; Satwant Singh; Fred Soltanzad; Padmaja Vallabha; Golshan Westpal; Hassan Yeylaghi; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOSCO CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation; Tosco Marketing Company, an entity of unknown legal capacity; Tosco Northwest Company; an entity of unknown legal capacity and a dba of Tosco Corporation Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-17110. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit April 3, 2000

D.C. No. CV-98-00179-CRB

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued and Submitted March 15, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI, KLEINFELD, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Unified Dealer Group and several gasoline service station franchisees (the "Dealers") appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of Tosco Corporation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

The Dealers contend that Tosco violated several provisions of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act ("PMPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., by offering to "rebrand" their service stations from BP to Union 76 upon the expiration of their franchises. "The PMPA plainly contemplates that franchisors will have substantial flexibility in changing the terms of a franchise upon renewal." Valentine v. Mobil Oil Corp., 789 F.2d 1388, 1391 (9th Cir.1986). Tosco's decision to rebrand appellants' stations constituted a "change or addition" to the franchise that fell squarely within § 2802(b)(3)(A). The Dealers do not challenge the district court's finding that Tosco's decision to rebrand the stations was made in good faith and in the normal course of business. Thus, the Dealers' refusal to agree to the rebrand relieved Tosco of any obligation to renew the franchise relationship. Because Tosco sought to continue the franchise relationship by offering new franchises, albeit under the 76 mark, the Dealers were not entitled to purchase rights under § 2802(b)(3)(D). See Valentine, 789 F.2d at 1390-91.

The Dealers' remaining arguments relating to §§ 2802(b)(2)(C), 2802(b)(2)(E), and 2802(c)(6), as well as their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, are without merit.

AFFIRMED