With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a PMPA defense. Id. at 1440. See also State Oil v. Khan, 839 F.Supp. 543 (N.D.Ill.1993) (remanding action for forcible entry and detainer originally brought by franchisor in state court where PMPA presented only a defense); Sun Ref. & Mktg. Co., Inc. v. D'Arpino, 112 F.R.D. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (remanding eviction action to state court, finding defense of preemption under PMPA irrelevant to determination of removal jurisdiction). While Sunoco has cited cases holding that the PMPA preempts various state statutory or common-law claims, those cases do not implicate a federal court’s removal jurisdiction, because the plaintiffs in those cases pled causes of action under both the PMPA and state law in federal court. See, e.g., Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Yonaty v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2005 WL 1460411

A: holding that fraud claim concerning nonrenewal of franchise agreement was preempted by pmpa
B: holding that pmpa preempted new york statutory law governing the termination or nonrenewal of franchises but did not preempt state contract claim which did not involve the termination of the franchise relationship
C: holding state law claim premised on implied duty of good faith was preempted by the pmpa because it concerned the termination of a petroleum franchise
D: holding that pmpa preempted state statute regarding the ter initiation and nonrenewal of franchises and state commonlaw claim
A.