23 B 6782, 23 A 352
Debtor/Plaintiff, who operates fuel service stations and convenience stores, filed a multi-count complaint against the franchisor Defendants.  Relief was sought under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”) as well as state law, including a claim for breach of contract.  Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that an earlier-filed motion to compel rejection of the parties’ executory contracts did not constitute termination under the PMPA.  HELD: Motion granted, with leave to amend.  Neither threats to terminate the franchise relationship nor a motion to compel rejection of the franchise contracts under the Bankruptcy Code are equivalent to termination under the PMPA.  Plaintiff’s failure to plausibly allege that the franchisors terminated or failed to renew the franchise relationship required dismissal of the PMPA and state law claims.  The court dismissed the breach of contract count for failure to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.