Kaabipour

These cases arise out of the withdrawal of Union Oil Company from the retail marketing of motor fuel in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. In so doing, Union Oil sold all of its marketing assets to Tosco Corporation. A number of former Union Oil franchisees objected to the sale on various grounds. The district court ruled against all of them and these appeals ensued.

One group, the Kaabipour Group, 1 asserts that the district court erred when it declared that the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801-06 , *759 preempts California law as far as this transaction is concerned. Another group, the Simmons Group, 2 asserts that the district court erred when it decided that Union Oil and Tosco properly adhered to the provisions of the PMPA regarding withdrawal from the market, despite the Simmons Group’s claims that they violated the timing, new franchise offer, and transfer of premises provisions of the PMPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 2802 (b)(2)(E). 3 A third group, the Raether Group, 4 asserts that the district court erred when it decided that Union Oil and Tosco properly adhered to the provisions of the PMPA regarding withdrawal…