Emmanuel Joseph v. Sasafrasnet, LLC, 734 F.3d 745

Joseph operates a BP service station in Chicago under a PMPA franchise; Sasafrasnet is the franchisor and BP distributor.
Sasafrasnet gave notice of termination in November 2010 based on three NSF July 2010 debit attempts for fuel deliveries.
Joseph sought a PMPA preliminary injunction; district court denied in May 2011.
This court remanded to resolve whether the July 2010 NSFs were PMPA “failures” and whether any exceptions applied.
On remand, the district court held two of the NSFs were PMPA “failures” justifying termination, at least regarding relief; the district court also addressed the burden of proof and the standard for preliminary relief.
This court reviews the district court’s PMPA injunction decision narrowly for abuse of discretion and clear error on questions of fact; the appeal is from the denial of the injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two July 2010 NSFs qualify as PMPA “failures.”	Joseph argues the NSFs were technical or beyond his control.	Sasafrasnet contends the NSFs were real failures under PMPA.	Two NSFs counted as PMPA failures; not purely technical/ uncontrollable.
Who bears the burden of proof for the PMPA preliminary injunction.	Joseph argues misallocation of burden.	Sasafrasnet defends proper burden on movant.	As movant, Joseph bore and met the burden under §2805(b)(2)(A)(ii).
Whether the district court properly applied the PMPA exceptions for technical/unimportant events or events beyond control.	Joseph argues exceptions protect him.	Sasafrasnet contends NSFs were not exempted.	District court did not err in applying the exceptions; the NSFs were not exempt.

Moody v. Amoco Oil Co., 734 F.2d 1200 (7th Cir. 1984) (review standards for preliminary injunctions; narrow discretionary review)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 367 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2004) (establishes standard of review for injunctions; deference to district court)