November 18, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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