Charles A. Lindner, III v. Mobil Oil Corporation

974 F.2d 1342 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles A. LINDNER, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-16147. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 21, 1992. * Decided Sept. 9, 1992. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; No. CV-89-00304, Edward D. Price, District Judge, Presiding. E.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. Before WIGGINS, O'SCANNLAIN and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles A. Lindner III appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Mobil Oil Corp. on Lindner's complaint for injunctive relief and damages under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (the PMPA), 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq. The district court found that Mobil had not violated the provisions of the PMPA and granted summary judgment in Mobil's favor. We affirm. DISCUSSION 1. Compliance with the PMPA 3 Subchapter I of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15…