Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co., et al, No. 12-1464 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, on behalf of an asserted class, brought this action in state court against MFA, Casey's General Stores, and Quicktrip Corporation (the operators) under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.020, alleging that defendants misrepresented the grade of gas pumped at their stations. Casey's General Stores removed the case to the federal district court asserting that plaintiff's claim was completely preempted by the Petroleum Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2801 et seq., or alternatively, that there was diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1711 et seq. The court concluded that the absence of a federal cause of action in Subchapter II meant that plaintiff's claim was not completely preempted and that there was no federal jurisdiction over that claim. Since the question of whether there was jurisdiction under CAFA would benefit from full development and adversarial briefing, the court remanded those issues in order for the district court to consider whether there was federal jurisdiction over this case under CAFA. Accordingly, the court reversed the ruling that plaintiff's state claim was completely preempted and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. In suit alleging gas station operators misrepresented the grade of gasoline sold at stations using single hose blender pumps, the absence of a federal cause of action under Subchapter II of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act means that plaintiff's claim is not completely preempted and that there is no federal removal jurisdiction over that claim; however, the district court did not reach a jurisdictional argument under the Class Action Fairness Act which might provide for diversity jurisdiction, and the issue must be remanded for further development and adversarial briefing. Judge Beam, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.