UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

COLONIAL DODGE, INCORPORATED, a

Maryland corporation; WHEATON

DODGE CITY, INCORPORATED, a

Maryland corporation; LAKE FOREST

CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INCORPORATED,

a Maryland corporation; FITZGERALD

AUTO MALL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a

No. 97-1024

Fitzgerald Dodge,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.

(CA-95-562-CCB)

Argued: July 9, 1997

Decided: August 5, 1997

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Walter Eugene Forehand, MYERS, FOREHAND &

FULLER, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellants. Robert Donald Cul-
tice, Jr., GOLDSTEIN & MANELLO, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts,

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Daniel E. Myers, Loula M. Fuller,

MYERS, FOREHAND & FULLER, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellants. Louis J. Scerra, Jr., Jonathan D. Cohen, GOLDSTEIN &

MANELLO, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts; Ty Cobb, Douglas R. M.

Nazarian, HOGAN & HARTSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On February 27, 1995, Plaintiffs/Appellants, Colonial Dodge, Inc.,

Wheaton Dodge City, Inc., Lake Forest Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., and

Fitzgerald Dodge (the Dealers) filed a complaint in the United States

District Court for the District of Maryland against Chrysler Corporation. Each of the seven counts in the Dealers' complaint was based

on Chrysler's alleged unfair distribution (malallocation) of vehicles in

violation of the Automobile Dealers' Day In Court Act (ADDCA),

see 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1221, et seq. (Count I); the Maryland Dealers' Act

(MDA), see Md. Code Ann., Transp. §§ 15-207 & 15-208 (Count II);

and certain common-law duties (Counts III-VII).

Following protracted discovery by both parties, Chrysler filed two

motions for summary judgment -- one based on the Dealers' failure

to adduce any evidence of coercion, a necessary element of a claim

under both the ADDCA and the MDA (Counts I-II), and the other

based on the Dealers' failure to adduce any evidence that they ever

ordered the specific vehicles they now claim were wrongfully withheld, a necessary element of malallocation (Counts I-VII). After

extensive briefing and oral argument, the district court issued an order

granting Chrysler's motions for summary judgment.

 2
The Dealers appeal the district court's order, arguing that Chrysler's requirement that they accept hard-to-sell vehicles in order to

receive fast-selling vehicles was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of

material fact on the issue of coercion. The Dealers also argue that

their evidence demonstrating that other Chrysler dealerships received

more vehicles is such that a jury could rationally infer that Chrysler

engaged in the malallocation of vehicles.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this

matter, and we have had the benefit of oral argument. Our review persuades us that the rulings of the district court were correct. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning set forth in the district court's

thorough opinion. See Colonial Dodge, Inc., v. Chrysler Corp., C.A.

No. CCB-95-562 (D. Md. Dec. 12, 1996).

AFFIRMED

 3