Summary
holding "I am not convinced that defendants acted in willful disregard of the PMPA"
Summary of this case from Fairlane Car Wash, Inc. v. Knight Enterprises, Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-11300-RWZ.
September 19, 2005
ORDER ON TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
Sixty Shell Oil dealers brought this action for breach of contract and violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act ("PMPA"). Because the individual claims are, for the most part, unique, the case is not amenable to class action treatment. The Court did, however, order an initial trial of the claims of ten plaintiffs which was held from November 15 to December 8, 2004 and resulted in a verdict for those plaintiffs. A number of trial motions remain on the docket. All were either decided during trial or are now moot. The docket shall reflect the closing of the following motions for the following reasons.
Sixty plaintiffs filed suit. Eighteen voluntarily dismissed their claims in 2002. From the remainder, the Court randomly selected ten for the first trial. One settled on the eve of trial, and the other nine tried to verdict.
Plaintiff's motion for limited reconsideration of the entry of summary against plaintiff Stephen Pisarczyk (#296 on the docket)
The motion was denied.
Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the decision on their motion for summary judgment (#297 on the docket)
The motion was denied.
Defendants' motion in limine regarding damages evidence (#298 on the docket)
The motion is denied as moot.
Defendant's motion in limine to exclude the proposed expert testimony of Brian Gorin (#299 on the docket)
The motion was denied.
Defendants' motion in limine regarding evidence relating to defendants' pricing to non-lessee dealers (#302 on the docket)
The motion is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs' motion for special verdict (#314 on the docket)
The motion was allowed.
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law (#322 on the docket)
The Court reserved on the motion and will revisit it in connection with its renewal #352.
Defendants' supplemental motion for special verdict (#329 on the docket)
The motion was denied as to the form of defendants' proposal, although the Court submitted special questions to the jury.
Defendants' motion for special verdict (#350 on the docket)
The motion was allowed.Defendants' motion for jury instructions (#351 on the docket)
The motion was allowed in part and denied in part.
Both parties also filed a number of post-trial motions and proposed findings and rulings addressed below.
Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction (#341 on the docket)
The motion is denied. Neither the PMPA nor the record in this case support the requested recalculation of rent.
Plaintiffs' motion for an award of punitive damages for willfulness under the PMPA (#342 on the docket)
The motion is denied. Although the jury found constructive termination and constructive non-renewal of certain lease agreements, I am not convinced that defendants acted in willful disregard of the PMPA and that punitive damages are appropriate. The evidence showed at least two reasons for defendants' conduct that mitigate against the imposition of exemplary damages.
First, the entire industry was changing the manner of computing rent. Whereas Shell and some others had based the amount of rent on the amount of gas purchased, the industry and defendants switched to a formulation based on the value of the station's real estate. That decision followed a change in the use of gas stations from simply selling gasoline and oil to including also convenience stores and other amenities. It also reflected a reasonable business decision to improve defendants' return on their investment in the real estate.
Second, during the period in question, Shell had merged with Texaco, and the combined company had to evolve a uniform rent structure. These business realities were, at least, partially responsible for the rent program of which plaintiff complained, and they compel denial of any award of punitive damages.
Plaintiffs' proposed findings of fact and rulings of law on Count III (#343 on the docket)
In order to establish a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11, plaintiffs "must show that the defendant[s'] actions fell 'within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness,' or were 'immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous' . . ." Damon v. Sun Co., Inc., 87 F.3d 1467, 1484 (1st Cir. 1996). For the same reasons that defendants are not liable for willful disregard and punitive damages under the PMPA, I find the defendants not liable on Count III.
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, for a new trial (#352 on the docket)
Defendants again raise a number of legal issues concerning the viability of plaintiffs' claims. I have previously addressed them in the context of a motion for summary judgment, rulings on evidence and defendants' motions during trial under Rule 50. I adhere to those rulings.
Defendants' arguments that the verdict is not supported by the evidence ignores the jury's right to draw conclusions from the evidence different from the conclusions the parties might reach. The jury is not required to accept calculations by the parties' experts. It may make its own calculations based on the evidence even if they lead to a result different from that reached by the expert. The evidence in this case permitted the jury's findings both as to liability and damages.
Defendants complain that they were not allowed sufficient time to present their case. First, the Court explained to all counsel before the case began the strictures on time, namely, that there would be fourteen trial days. Second, while it is true that plaintiffs used more time than allotted, a not insignificant part of the excess was attributable to lengthy cross-examination by defendants.
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied as is the alternative, their motion for a new trial.
Defendant's motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of 20 pages (#353 on the docket)
The motion is allowed.
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file reply (#354 on the docket)
The motion is allowed.
Plaintiffs' motion to file brief in excess of twenty pages (#361 on the docket)
The motion is allowed.
Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply (#365 on the docket)
The motion is allowed.