From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, Llc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Aug 29, 2003
292 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Mass. 2003)

Summary

finding that it was "too far a stretch of the imagination to conclude from [defendant's] alleged statements that it was agreeing to give up its fundamental right to establish a distribution network as it saw fit and was committing itself not to add any additional distributors" given that nothing in the defendant's prior statements mentioned distributors or the distribution network

Summary of this case from CardiAQ Valve Techs., Inc. v. Neovasc Inc.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-12629-RGS

August 29, 2003


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and plaintiffs' objections, I see no reason why the carefully explained recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dein should not be adopted. Summary judgment will therefore be granted to defendant Douglas Dynamics, LLC., Fisher Plows Division (Fisher) on all counts of the Complaint. As the Magistrate Judge demonstrates, there was no enforceable agreement preventing Fisher from appointing J.C. Madigan, Inc. (Madigan) as a full-line distributor of its snow removal equipment, whatever the competitive disadvantage accruing to Tuck's Trucks, Inc. (TTI). Nor have plaintiffs adduced facts sufficient to overcome summary judgment on their tortious interference (Madigan) or fraud and misrepresentation claims. As the Magistrate Judge points out, TTI is unable to show that it even had a business relationship with Madigan, or that Fisher acted with improper motive or means in appointing Madigan. Nor can plaintiffs show that they reasonably on Fisher's generalized statements of goodwill in absorbing the business Tuck's

Plaintiffs do not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation with respect to Count II and Count V.

Truck Sales (the undisputed evidence is to the contrary). Finally, plaintiffs have failed to show any conduct on Fisher's part (over and above the failed showing on their fraud and misrepresentation claim) that raises a trialworthy issue under Chapter 93A.

ORDER

For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in her Report, the Recommendation is ADOPTED. Judgment shall be entered by the Clerk for Fisher on all Counts of the Complaint.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, Llc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Aug 29, 2003
292 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Mass. 2003)

finding that it was "too far a stretch of the imagination to conclude from [defendant's] alleged statements that it was agreeing to give up its fundamental right to establish a distribution network as it saw fit and was committing itself not to add any additional distributors" given that nothing in the defendant's prior statements mentioned distributors or the distribution network

Summary of this case from CardiAQ Valve Techs., Inc. v. Neovasc Inc.
Case details for

Boyle v. Douglas Dynamics, Llc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES G. BOYLE and TUCK'S TRUCKS, INC. v. DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, LLC., FISHER…

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Aug 29, 2003

Citations

292 F. Supp. 2d 198 (D. Mass. 2003)

Citing Cases

KPM Analytics N. Am. Corp. v. Blue Sun Sci., LLC

"To prevail on an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claim, "a plaintiff must prove that there…

Samaria Iglesia Evangelica, Inc. v. Lorenzo

Next, Samaria PR argues that a contractual agreement binding Samaria MA to pay dues should be implied based…