Rustom

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was commenced in state court in 1981. A Second Amended Complaint was filed in June, 1985 and the removal petition was filed within 30 days after it was received by the petitioner defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). The Second Amended Complaint expressly asserted for the first time a claim under Title I of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (the “PMPA” or “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., arising from the alleged wrongful termination of a franchise relationship by the defendant franchisors, Atlantic Richfield Company and ARCO Petroleum Products Company (collectively “ARCO”). The Court sua sponte issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why the action should not be remanded to state court for failure to remove it within 30 days of service of the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b) or, alternatively, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of derivative jurisdiction in light of the PMPA’s apparent grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts, 15 U.S.C. § 2805 . The issues raised by the OSC now have been briefed and argued. Because I conclude that the action must be dismissed for lack of derivative jurisdiction, the…