Court Opinion

ID: 2965270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:38:05.442475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:50.865248
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                         ____________________

No. 97-1710
 

                        ANDREW J. LANE, ET AL.,

                        Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                  v.

                 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,

                         Defendant, Appellee.

                         ____________________

             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

            [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

                         ____________________

                                Before

                        Torruella, Chief Judge,
                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                         ____________________

    Andrew M. Porter, Isaac H. Peres and Franchek & Porter, LLP on brief
for appellant.
    Sabin Willett, Richelle S. Kennedy and Bingham Dana LLP on brief for
appellee.

                         ____________________

                            March 31, 1998
                         ____________________

      Per Curiam.  Essentially for the reasons stated by the
    district court in its ruling on April 30, 1997, we conclude
    that the complaint properly was dismissed.  
        We add only this comment.  The Massachusetts state court
    already has expressed a view of the definition and duties of a
    "competitor," which view is contrary to that advocated here by
    plaintiffs.  Doliner v. Brown, 21 Mass. App. 692, 695, 489
    N.E.2d 1036, 1038-39 (1986).  In the context of this
    Massachusetts dispute, we have no reason to impose the
    differing view of a court of another state.  See Dolton v.
    Capital Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 642 P.2d 21, 23 (Colo.
    App. 1981).
        Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.