Court Opinion

ID: 2963007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:04:49.679667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:37.169325
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 18, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                              _________________________          No. 94-1305                            CRAIG CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                             GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                              _________________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________                              _________________________                                        Before                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________                              _________________________               Ralph A. Dyer for appellants.
               _____________               Daniel L. Goldberg, with whom Lawrence S. Buonomo, Edward W.
               __________________            ___________________  _________          Risko, and Bingham, Dana & Gould were on brief, for appellee.
          _____      _____________________                              _________________________                              _________________________

                    Per Curiam.  In  this case, plaintiffs-appellants Craig
                    __________          Chevrolet,  Inc.  and  Norman S.  Craig  sued  defendant-appellee          General Motors  Corporation (GM) for  damages arising out  of (a)          appellants' purchase  of a  Chevrolet franchise in  Island Falls,          Maine,  and  (b)  the   subsequent  failure  of  that  franchise.          Appellants' amended  complaint  contained  no  fewer  than  eight          separate statements of claim, two of which were later voluntarily          dismissed.  The remaining six statements of claim included counts          for  intentional misrepresentation,  negligent misrepresentation,          breach of contract,  negligent infliction of emotional  distress,          violation of the Maine Dealer  Protection Statute, Me. Rev. Stat.          Ann. tit. 10    1171-1186 (West 1980 & Supp. 1993), and violation          of the federal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C.             1221-1225  (1988).    In  a pretrial  order,  the  district court          (Brody,  U.S.D.J.)  granted summary  judgment  on  four of  these          claims.   See Fed. R. Civ. P.56.   The case proceeded to trial on
                    ___          the remaining  two claims.   At the  close of  the evidence,  the          district court (Carter, U.S.D.J.) granted the  defendant's motion          for judgment as a matter of law.  See Fed. R. Civ. P.50(b).  This
                                            ___          appeal ensued.                    We have  carefully reviewed  both the summary  judgment          record   and  the  trial  transcript.     In  addition,  we  have          entertained oral argument, studied  the parties' briefs, read the          district court's decisions,  and researched  the applicable  law.          We  conclude,  without serious  question,  that  the lower  court          appropriately entered  judgment in  GM's favor.   Accordingly, we                                          2

          affirm the          judgment for  substantially the  reasons stated in  Judge Brody's          and Judge Carter's rulings.1          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________                              
          ____________________               1Judge Brody's  rescript accepts  in large part,  and relies          upon, a  report and  recommendation of Magistrate  Judge Beaulieu          dated January 25, 1994.   To that extent, we,  too, approve Judge          Beaulieu's recommendation.                                          3