Elkins Subaru, Inc. v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation licensed

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1454
ELKINS SUBARU, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation licensed and
authorized to do business in West Virginia,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00132-JPB)
Submitted: September 14, 2012 Decided: November 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel C. Cooper, COOPER LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Bridgeport, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher S. Dodrill, Philip J.
Combs, THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Elkins Subaru, Inc. (Elkins Subaru), a Subaru automobile
dealership, brought this action against Subaru of America, Inc.
(SOA), a Subaru automobile distributor, seeking reasonable
rental value payments under West Virginia Code § 17A-6A-8(2).
In granting summary judgment to SOA, the district court noted
that, under the plain language of West Virginia Code § 17A-6A-
8(2) and § 17A-6A-5(c), a distributor is not liable for any
reasonable rental value payments if (1) the dealership owns,
manages, or establishes another make of new motor vehicles in
the same dealership facilities and (2) the dealership is
terminated because the dealership lost its floor plan financing
or failed to substantially comply with its dealership agreement
with the distributor. In this case, Elkins Subaru admits that
its dealership shared ownership and management with a General
Motors dealership, and that the two dealerships operated out of
the same facility. Elkins Subaru also admits that its Subaru
dealership was terminated by SOA because: (1) the dealership
agreement between Elkins Subaru and SOA required Elkins Subaru
to maintain floor plan financing and conduct standard business
operations during customary business hours; (2) Elkins Subaru
failed to maintain floor plan financing; and (3) Elkins Subaru
shut down its business operations. Based on this evidence, the
district court held that, “[a]s a multiline automobile

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
dealership, [Elkins Subaru] breached the terms of the franchise
agreement with Subaru of America, and is thus not entitled to
any damages contemplated by the West Virginia Statute.” (J.A.
682).
On appeal, Elkins Subaru challenges the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on a variety of fronts. Having
carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the relevant law,
we agree with the district court that Elkins Subaru breached the
terms of the parties’ dealership agreement, and, therefore, as a
multi-line automobile dealership, is not entitled to relief
under West Virginia Code § 17A-6A-8(2). Accordingly, we affirm
on the reasoning of the district court. Elkins Subaru, Inc. v.
Subaru of America, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-132 (N.D.W.Va.
March 6, 2012).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --