Court Opinion

ID: 2964389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:24:57.656021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.135386
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1573

                        ZENAPHON R. DEMERIS d/b/a AKI'S GULF,

                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

                                          v.

                               CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.,

                                Defendant - Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                              and Lisi,* District Judge.
                                         ______________

                                _____________________

               Paul D.  Sanson, with  whom Glenn  M. Cunningham,  Shipman &
               _______________             ____________________   _________
          Goodwin and Mark G. Howard were on brief for appellant.
          _______     ______________
               Steven E. Kramer, with whom Stanley A. Brooks  and Wellesley
               ________________            _________________      _________
          Law Associates were on brief for appellee.
          ______________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 10, 1996
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

                    Per  Curiam.   This is an  appeal by  Cumberland Farms,
                    Per  Curiam
                    ___________

          Inc.  ("Cumberland") from  a  preliminary  injunction granted  to

          Zenaphon R. Demeris, d/b/a Aki's Gulf ("Demeris") pursuant to the

          Petroleum Marketing  Practices Act,  15 U.S.C.     2801, et  seq.
                                                                   ________

          (the "Act").

                    Demeris was  a  franchisee  of  Cumberland  motor  fuel

          products  and rented  one of  its gasoline  stations.   A dispute

          arose regarding  the respective rights of  Demeris and Cumberland

          when the  latter attempted to terminate  the franchise agreement.

          Demeris  sought  and  was  granted a  preliminary  injunction  to

          prevent Cumberland from effectuating the termination.  By its own

          terms, the preliminary injunction dissolved as of August 1, 1996,

          a  date  which coincided  with  the  termination  period  of  the

          franchise agreement.

                    Cumberland's  main claim  is  that  the District  Court

          abused its discretion and committed errors of law when it granted

          the preliminary injunction to  Demeris, due to Cumberland's clear

          legal right  to terminate Demeris's  franchise under 15  U.S.C.  

          2802.  However, after  reviewing the briefs filed by  the parties

          after oral arguments,  which indicated the present  status of the

          franchise  agreement  and  briefed  the  issue  of  mootness,  we

          conclude that Comberland's claim is moot.

                    It is undisputed that as of August 1, 1996, Demeris had

          vacated the  premises in question.   Furthermore, it  is Demeris'

          stated position that "the franchise ceased operations on August 1

          [consistent with] the  terms of the injunction and  [pursuant to]

                                         -2-

          the parties' April 4  [settlement/franchise] agreement."  It also

          appears that  Demeris has  "decided not to  contest [Cumberland's

          rejection of  the franchise  assignment proposed by  Demeris] and

          has so informed [Cumberland]."

                    It is well settled that a case is moot "when the issues

          presented  are no longer 'live'."  United States Parole Comm'n v.
                                             ___________________________

          Geraghty,  445 U.S.  388, 395  (1980).   The requirement  that an
          ________

          actual case and  controversy exist  at the time  a federal  court

          renders its decision  is a jurisdictional mandate  of Article III

          of the Constitution, one that precludes the issuance of  advisory

          or academic  opinions.  U.S. Const.  art. III,   2  et seq.; U.S.
                                                              _______  ____

          National Bank  of Oregon v.  Independent Ins. Agents  of America,
          ________________________     ____________________________________

          Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 446 (1993).  Although some limited exceptions
          ____

          exist to a literal enforcement of this rule, see, e.g., Newspaper
                                                       ___  ____  _________

          Guild  of Salem, Local 105  v. Ottaway Newspapers,  Inc., 79 F.3d
          __________________________     _________________________

          1273, 1277 (1st  Cir. 1996) (quoting  Weinstein v. Bradford,  423
                                       _______  _________    ________

          U.S. 147,  149 (1975)) the instant  case does not fit  any of the

          narrow  confines of these  exceptions, Cumberland's  arguments to

          the  contrary notwithstanding.    The preliminary  injunction has

          expired, and  Demeris has accepted Cumberland's  rejection of his

          proposed assignee:  simply put, the  issues raised  before us  no

          longer exist.  See generally Wright, Miller & Cooper, 13A Federal
                         _____________                              _______

          Practice & Procedure   3533.2, at 231 (2d ed. 1984 & Supp. 1996).
          ____________________

          If there are other  issues pending between the parties,  they are

          not properly before us on this appeal.

                    In conclusion, because the preliminary injunction is no

                                         -3-

          longer in effect and the assignment of rights under the franchise

          agreement  has been specifically waived by the only party who can

          claim them, we  conclude that  the issues raised  by this  appeal

          have  been  mooted.     Dismissal  of  the  appeal  is  therefore

          warranted.

                    So ordered.  No costs.
                    __________   ________

                                         -4-