Millett

Opinion by Judge HALL.

Appellants were franchisees of entities owned by Appellee Union Oil Company of California (“Unocal”). Appellants argue that they are entitled to the goodwill value of their auto repair franchises because Unocal failed to give them the required notice of nonrenewal mandated by the Washington *12 Franchise Investment Protection Act (“FIPA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Unocal, concluding that the FIPA’s one-year notice requirement was preempted by the ninety-day requirement in the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”).

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I.

Appellants operated “UNOCAL 76” service stations under motor fuel franchise agreements. They also entered into “Pro-tech” franchise agreements, whereby their service stations provided guaranteed service for automotive repairs. The Protech franchisees paid a monthly franchise fee and were required to meet certain equipment standards and personnel training qualifications. Both the motor fuel franchises and the Pro-tech franchises were owned and licensed by Appellee Unocal.…