on nonrenewal, no matter how such claims are characterized.” Id. at 856. Shukla agreed with the outcome in O’Shea because O’Shea “was challenging the enforcement of a provision in the franchise agreement, not the termination or nonrenewal of that agreement.” Id. In contrast, if the “state law ... claims ... are intimately intertwined with the termination or nonrenewal of a franchise,” the PMPA preempts those claims. Id. at 857. We agree with the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit and adopt the “intimately intertwined” test to determine whether a state law claim is preempted by the PMPA. In short, when state law claims are “intimately intertwined” with the termination or nonrenewal of a franchise they are preempted by the PMPA. See Clark v. BP Oil Co., 137 F.3d 386, 396 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Simmons v. Mobil Oil Corp., 29 F.3d 505, 512
holding that fraud claim concerning nonrenewal of franchise agreement was preempted by pmpa 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 holding that pmpa preempted state statute regarding the ter initiation and nonrenewal of franchises and state commonlaw claim holding that the plaintiffs state law claims were preempted by pmpa because they sought to impose standards more stringent than the pmpa regarding the termination or nonrenewal of his franchise 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