Vanik Gasparian v. Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware Corporation

33 F.3d 58 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Vanik GASPARIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-55180. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 1, 1994. * Decided Aug. 15, 1994. 1 Before: D.W. NELSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and KING, ** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 Vanik Gasparian appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Atlantic Richfield Co. ("ARCO") in his action alleging that ARCO improperly terminated his franchise agreement in violation of the Federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 2801-2841 ("PMPA") and committed defamation under California Civil Code Sec. 45 by publishing an article about Gasparian in its newsletter. 1 Gasparian contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of ARCO on his claim under the PMPA because the court erroneously construed the term "numerous" in…