Palmieri v. Mobil Oil Corp., 1117
| Decision Date | 27 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1117,1117 |
| Citation | 682 F.2d 295 |
| Parties | Joseph PALMIERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 82-7034. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Richard W. Farrell, Stamford, Conn. (Abate, Fox & Farrell, Stamford, Conn., of counsel), for appellant.
William E. Glynn, Hartford, Conn. (Richard M. Reynolds, Scott P. Moser, John A. Danaher, III, Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for appellee.
Before LUMBARD, MOORE and MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
This is an expedited appeal from an order entered on January 8, 1982 by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Clarie, C. J., which denied Joseph Palmieri's application for a preliminary injunction pursuant to the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq. On February 9, 1982, we stayed Judge Clarie's order pending this appeal.
Palmieri operates a retail gasoline station in Southington, Connecticut. On November 30, 1981 Palmieri's latest franchise agreement with Mobil Oil Corporation expired. Mobil offered to renew the franchise under an agreement containing a new formula which would substantially increase Palmieri's monthly rent. When Palmieri refused to accept the proposed agreement, Mobil notified him that his franchise would not be renewed. Palmieri responded by bringing suit alleging that Mobil's failure to renew his franchise was arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the PMPA.
We agree with Judge Clarie's ruling that Palmieri failed to present evidence raising sufficiently serious questions with respect to Mobil's good faith and lack of discriminatory motive to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 2805. Section 2805(b)(2) provides in clear language that the franchisee bears the burden of showing that there exist "sufficiently serious questions going to the merits" to warrant the equitable relief of a preliminary injunction. 1 The record fully supports Judge Clarie's ruling that Palmieri failed to meet his burden.
We also agree with Judge Clarie that the PMPA does not require a franchisor to use objectively reasonable and economically realistic criteria in determining the amount of rent to be charged for a retail gasoline franchise; it merely prohibits a franchisor from applying a rental formula in a discriminatory manner in order to drive a franchisee out of the franchise relationship. Chief Judge Clarie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cason v. Texaco, Inc.
...Amerada Hess Corp., 541 F.Supp. 321, 330 (D.N.J.1982); Palmieri v. Mobil Oil Corp., 529 F.Supp. 506, 509-511 (D.Conn.1982), aff'd, 682 F.2d 295 (2d Cir.1982). 6 The Court notes that this subjective intent does not need to be proved by direct evidence of actual state of mind. Munno v. Amoco ......
-
Ackley v. Gulf Oil Corp., Civ. No. B-86-402 (EBB)
...courts to avoid scrutinizing that decision. Darling v. Mobil Oil Corp., 864 F.2d 981, 990 (2d Cir. 1989); Palmieri v. Mobil Oil Corp., 682 F.2d 295, 296 (2d Cir.1982). "Subjective good faith, i.e. a `good heart' without evil intent, is all that the statute requires of franchisors." Munno v.......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Karbowski
...Corp., 570 F.Supp. 1088, 1093-94 (E.D.Mich.1983); Palmieri v. Mobil Oil Corp. 529 F.Supp. 506, 510-11 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 682 F.2d 295, 296 (2d Cir.1982) (per curiam); Bellmore v. Mobil Oil Corp., 524 F.Supp. 850, 853-54 (D.Conn.), aff'd mem., 672 F.2d 899 (2d Cir.1981); Munno v. Amoco Oil Co......
-
Four S Shell L.L.C. v. PMG L.L.C.
...v. Texaco, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 767, 768 (W.D. Mo. 1979); Palmieri v. Mobil Oil Corp., 529 F. Supp. 506, 512 (D. Conn.), aff'd, 682 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1982); Bellmore v. Mobil Oil Corp., 524 F. Supp. 850, 853-54 (D. Conn. 1981)). As the First Circuit noted in Esso:Because the "good faith" requ......