Arco Products Co. v. Stewart & Young Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

Stewart & Young, Inc. (“Stewart”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to ARCO Products Company (“ARCO”). Stewart argues that the district court erred 1) by concluding that it did have subject matter jurisdiction over ARCO’s declaratory relief action; 2) by concluding that ARCO’s termination of its Franchise Agreement was proper under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2841 (“PMPA”); and 3) by declining to hold the Agreement as anti-competitive or an unenforceable contract of adhesion. We agree with the district court, and affirm.

I

Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law we review de novo. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.1998).

Stewart argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over ARCO’s declaratory relief action, consolidated with Stewart’s action, because it was merely a defense to Stewart’s action, and because the PMPA does not provide for a cause of action by a franchisor. It is true that the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 , by itself does not confer federal question jurisdiction. Shelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671 ,…