### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-1202

E MMANU E L J O S E P H

, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

S A SAF R A S N E T , LLC, Defen dant-Appellee.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Eastern Di v i sio n. No. 11 C 4 02 — Harry D. Lei nen webe r , Judg e.
A RGU E D O CT OB E R 1, 2013

— D E C I D E D N OV E MB E R 4, 2013

Before C UD AHY

, R I P PL E, and H AMI L T O N , Circ uit Judges. H AMI L T O N , Cir cui t Judge

. Plainti ff Emmanuel Joseph appeals from the di stric t court’s deni al of hi s motion for a prelim i nary i njuncti on under the Petr ol eum Mar ket ing Practi ces Act (“PMP

A”), 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq
. Joseph oper ates
a Briti sh Petr oleum service station franchi se in Chi cago, Illi noi s. Defendan t Sasafrasnet, LLC i s an authorized di strib utor of BP products and i s Joseph ’s franchi sor.2 No. 13-1202
In Nov emb e r 2 0 1 0 , Sa s a fra s net prov i ded Joseph wi th notic e of i ts i ntent to ter minate hi s franchi se based on three occasi ons i n July 2010 when Sasafrasnet atte mpted to debi t Joseph’s bank
accoun t to p ay for fuel deli v eries but payment w as deni ed for insuffi ci ent fund s (“NSF”). Joseph sought a prelim ina r y i njuncti on to enjo i n Sasafrasnet’s ter minati on. In May 2011, the di stric t court deni ed an injuncti on, finding that Joseph fai led to meet hi s burden for a prelim inary injuncti on under 1 5 U.S.C. §2805(b) (2)( A)(i i ) to show that “there exis t suffi ci ently seri ous questi ons going to the merits to make such questi ons a fai r gr ound for liti gation.” Joseph appealed that deni al, and w e reman d e d to the di stric t court for addi tional findin gs and conclu si ons on v ery speci fi c questi ons reg ardin g whether Joseph’s NSFs in July 2010 amounted to “fai lures” under the PMP A. Joseph v
. Sasafrasnet, LLC, 689 F .3d 683 (7th Ci r
. 2012). A bri ef explanation of the statute i s necess ary to understand our remand. Section 2802(b) (2)( C) authorizes a franchi sor to ter minate a franchi se i f an ev ent occurs that i s relev ant to the franchi se
r e l a t i onshi p. 15 U.S.C. §2802(b) (2)( C). Section 2802(c) li sts tw elv e types of ev ents that consti tute suc h a r elev ant ev ent “and as a result of whi ch te r mination of the franchi se
... i s
reasona bl e ,” but the li st i s not exhausti v e of the catego ry of relev ant ev ents. One such type of ev ent i s a “fai lure by the franchi see to pay the franchi sor in a tim ely manner when due all sums to whi ch the franchi sor i s leg ally entitled.” 15 U.S.C. §2802 (c )( 8 ). But such an ev ent does not count as a “fai lure” under the PMP

A i f i t w as “only techni cal or uni mport ant to the franchi se relationsh i p,” 15 U.S.C. §2801(13)(A), or i f the ev entNo. 13-1202 3

w as “for a caus e bey ond the reasonable contro l of the franchi

see.” 15 U.S.C. §2801(13)(B). There i s no di spute about whether Joseph fa i led to make tim ely payments i n July 2010, but the statuto ry exceptions for

“ techni cal or uni mport ant” ev ents or ev ents bey ond t he reasonab l e contro l of the franchi see mi ght hav e prot ected Joseph from terminati on. In i ts fi rst deni al of Joseph’s m otion for prelim inary i njuncti on, the di stric t court di d not address whether J oseph’s NSFs m i ght not hav e been “fai lures,” ei ther becau se they w ere tec hn ica l or uni mport ant to the parties’ franchi se relat i onshi p or beca use they w ere bey ond Joseph’s reasonable contro l. On remand, the d ist ric t court consi dered th ose questi ons and found that tw o of Joseph’s NSFs in July 2010 should count as “fai lures” under the PMP A justif y ing ter minati on, at least to the ext ent that he di d not show he w as entitled to prelim i nary injuncti v e relief. Joseph v
. Sasafrasnet, LLC, 2012 WL 6727263 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2012). Joseph has appealed agai n. Thi s ti me w e find no err or and affi rm. As w e sai d i n our earlier opini on, our rev i ew of the di stric t court’s deci si on t o d e ny Joseph prelim inary relief under the PMP A i s “narro w

.” Joseph , 689 F .3d at 689, quoting Moo dy v
. Amoco Oil Co. , 734 F .2d 1200, 1217 (7th Ci r
. 1984). W e “wi ll not
rev erse a di stric t court’s gr ant or d e nia l of a prelim inary i njuncti on absent a clear abus e of di sc r e t io n by the di stric t court.” Moo dy, 734 F .2d at 1217. W e rev i ew questi ons of law de
novo and questi ons of fact for clear err or
. Burlin gton N. & Santa Fe R y
. Co. v
. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs , 367 F .3d 675, 678 (7th Ci r
. 2004).4 No. 13-1202 Joseph argues that t he di stric t courterr ed i n ass i gning the burden of proo f, puttin g the burden on Joseph. But as the party seeki ng a prelim i nary injuncti on, Joseph had the burden of proo f. T

o merit a prelim inary injuncti on, 15 U

. S .C. §2805(b) (2)(A)(i i ) required Joseph to show that “there exis t suffi ci ently seri ous questi ons going to the merits to make such questi ons a fai r gr ound for li tiga t io n.” The di stric t court proper ly appli ed thi s standard. On remand, the di stric t court found that the second July 2010 NSF w as bey ond Jo se ph’s contro l but the fi rst and the thi rd w ere wi thi n hi s contro l. Joseph , 2012 WL 6727263, at *5–6. Joseph’s bank accoun t w as not adequately fund ed for Sasafrasnet’s debi t of the accoun t on t ho se occasi ons becau se Joseph had deci ded to change banks. Th e fir st NSF occurred becau se he had fai led to giv e Sasafrasnet adequate notic e of the change. The thi rd NSF occurred becau se Joseph had fa ile d to
ensur e a sm o oth tr ansi tion betw een hi s tw o open
accoun ts—the old and th e ne w
. The di stric t court found that these ci rcums tances w ere entirely wi thi n Joseph’s contro l, and

w e find no clear err or in those findings. The di stric t court then w e nt o n t o consi der whether the NSFs w ere only “tec hn ical” or “uni mport ant” to the parties’ fran chi se relat i onshi p. Joseph , 2012 WL 67272 6 3 , a t* 7

– 8

. It foun d that Joseph had a hi stor y of maki ng late payments in sub stanti al amounts becau se of insu ffi ci ent fund s—the inv oi c e a m oun t fo r each of the three July 2010 NSFs w as ov er $22,000—and that Joseph’s delinquen t payments w ere not “techni cal” or “uni mport ant.” Joseph atte mpts to rear gue the facts on appeal, contendi ng that hi s late payments w ere i solated inci dents, that Sasafrasnet’s deadlines w ere ar bi tr ary , and that hi s paymentsNo. 13-1202 5

w ere late by only a few days, someti mes a few hours. But our
ro le on appeal i s not to r e w e ig h the evidenc e, but to rev i ew only for clear err or . Fin ding none, w e affi rm. A F F I R M E D

.