Naso v. Sun Refining & Marketing Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. C82-1572.,C82-1572. |
| Citation | 582 F. Supp. 1566 |
| Parties | Charles A. NASO dba Charlie's Sunoco, Plaintiff, v. SUN REFINING AND MARKETING CO., et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Dennis G. Mille, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
William T. Smith, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
On June 17, 1982, the plaintiff, Charles A. Naso d/b/a Charlie's Sunoco (hereinafter Naso), filed the above captioned case pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq. (hereinafter PMPA). Naso has alleged that the defendants, Sun Refining and Marketing Co. and Sun Oil Company of Pennsylvania (hereinafter Sun Oil) violated various provisions of the PMPA when they attempted to terminate plaintiff's franchise.
Currently before the court is the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider the pleadings, related documents and evidence, and all reasonable inferences in a manner most favorable to the non-moving party. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60 (6th Cir.1979), cert. dismissed, 444 U.S. 986, 100 S.Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed.2d 415 (1979); Board of Ed. Cincinnati v. Department of H.E.W., 532 F.2d 1070 (6th Cir.1976). A summary of the evidence, construed most favorably to plaintiff, follows.
On June 20, 1977, Naso was granted a franchise by Sun Oil to operate a full service gas station at 6907 Pearl Road, Middleburg Heights, Ohio. This property is owned by Sun Oil and leased to Naso. Naso received a letter on March 22, 1982 from Sun Oil which informed him that the lease and franchise would not be renewed at the end of these agreements, which would be on June 19, 1982. However, on June 15, 1982, Sun Oil extended the non-renewal date to July 19, 1982. Thereafter, on June 30, 1982, Sun Oil rescinded all prior notices of termination and non-renewal, and the lease and franchise agreements have continued in effect.
Sun Oil, in its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment has asserted that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings. After reviewing all of the pleadings and briefs in this action in light of the undisputed facts, this court hereby determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the case is hereby dismissed.
A fundamental requirement of jurisdiction in the federal courts is that a justiciable case or controversy exists under Art. III, § 2 of the Constitution. Such a justiciable case or controversy is distinguished from a dispute which is hypothetical, contingent or abstract in nature. Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945). A federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to express a legal opinion in an action which lacks a justiciable case or controversy.
Naso has alleged subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2801, et seq. Jurisdiction is vested in a federal district court when a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2802(a) which states as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and section 2803 of this title, no franchisor engaged in the sale, consignment, or distribution of motor fuel in commerce may — (1) terminate any franchise (entered into or renewed on or after June 19, 1978) prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wayne County
...the rigorous Art. III requirements themselves."); Lewis v. Knutson, 699 F.2d 230, 236 (5th Cir.1983). See Naso v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co., 582 F.Supp. 1566, 1567 (N.D.Ohio 1983). "Those who do not possess Art. III standing may not litigate as suitors in the courts of the United State......
-
Khan v. State Oil Co., 94 C 35.
...issue arises from the requirement that a court's jurisdiction be secured by a justiciable case or controversy. Naso v. Sun Ref. & Mktg. Co., 582 F.Supp. 1566 (N.D.Ohio 1983) (citing Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 65 S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945)). The PMPA ve......
-
Rustom v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...the cases do not reach the issue, holding only that an action under the PMPA may be brought in federal court. Naso v. Sun Ref. & Mktg. Co., 582 F.Supp. 1566, 1567 (N.D.Ohio 1983); Meyer v. Amerada Hess Corp., 541 F.Supp. 321, 328 (D.N. J.1982). The holding of the third case, Shell Oil Co. v......
-
Pro Sales, Inc. v. Texaco, U.S.A., Div. of Texaco, Inc.
...controversy, i.e., because the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. See Naso v. Sun Refining & Marketing Co., 582 F.Supp. 1566, 1567 (N.D.Ohio 1983).4 Although this conclusion is not explicit in the district court opinion, the opinion clearly requires it. The ......