Poquez v. Suncor Holdings - COPII LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EVELYN POQUEZ,

8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13

SUNCOR HOLDINGS - COPII, LLC; GSM
PARTNERS, LLC; and TOWER ENERGY
GROUP,
Defendants.

) Case No. 11-328 SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14
15

Plaintiff Evelyn Poquez ("Plaintiff") commenced this action

16

against Defendants Suncor Holdings - COPII, LLC ("Suncor"), GSM

17

Partners, LLC ("GSM"), and Tower Energy Group ("Tower"), bringing a

18

claim of violation of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15

19

U.S.C. §§ 2801-06 ("PMPA"), as well as state law claims for

20

specific performance and declaratory relief.

21

Suncor and GSM (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Motion to

22

Dismiss, which is fully briefed.

23

("Opp'n"), 17 ("Reply"), 24 ("Surreply").

24

ECF No. 1 ("Compl.").

ECF Nos. 8 ("Mot."), 16

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she has owned and

25

operated a Union 76-branded motor fuel service station in San

26

Francisco, California since 1985.

27

alleges that around November 24, 2010, Defendants sent Plaintiff a

28

Notice of Nonrenewal of Plaintiff's franchise agreement; Plaintiff

Compl. ¶¶ 1, 13.

Plaintiff

1

contends that this action violates the PMPA because Plaintiff never

2

received written notice of the duration of the underlying lease

3

before the beginning of the term of her franchise agreement.

4

¶¶ 17-18.

Id.

5

In seeking dismissal of the action, Defendants contend inter

6

alia that this action is moot given Plaintiff's subsequent assent

7

to a new three-year franchisor/franchisee agreement.

8

The Court invited Plaintiff to file a surreply to address this

9

argument.

United States District Court

ECF No. 22.

In her Surreply, Plaintiff admits that Defendants withdrew the

10
For the Northern District of California

Reply at 3.

11

Notice of Nonrenewal on February 7, 2011 and that Plaintiff

12

subsequently signed a new lease agreement.

13

Court finds that these actions moot the claims pleaded in

14

Plaintiff's Complaint.

Surreply at 3-4.

The

Plaintiff argues that other subsequent actions by Defendants

15
16

support a PMPA claim.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that

17

Defendants violated the PMPA in February 2011 by giving Plaintiff

18

only four days to match a third party's offer to purchase the

19

property.

20

conveyed title to the property to Forest City West, LLC in April

21

2011 in violation of her "PMPA rights."

22

allegedly occurred after Plaintiff filed her Complaint, and as

23

such, they are not pleaded in the Complaint.

24

///

25

///

26

//

27

///

28

///

Surreply at 4.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

2

Id. at 5.

These actions

1

In light of the above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to

2

Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her Complaint to remove now-

4

moot claims and add claims premised on the above allegations.

5

Plaintiff must file her amended complaint within thirty (30) days

6

of this Order or the Court will dismiss the action in its entirety.

7

Should Plaintiff amend her Complaint to include baseless and/or

8

frivolous claims, she will face appropriate sanctions under Federal

9

Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the Court's

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

inherent authority.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: June 15, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3