Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 79-1514
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before ALDRICH and BOWNES, Circuit Judges, PETTINE; ALDRICH |
| Citation | 616 F.2d 603 |
| Parties | PARK MOTOR MART, INC. et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1514,79-1514 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 1980 |
Page 603
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al., Defendants, Appellees.
First Circuit.
Decided March 11, 1980.
Christopher A. Moen, Jr., with whom Lawrence P. Mahoney, Portland, Maine, was on brief, for appellants.
Roger A. Putnam, Portland, Maine, with whom Robert A. Moore and Verrill & Dana, Portland, Maine, were on brief, for appellees.
Before ALDRICH and BOWNES, Circuit Judges, PETTINE, District Judge. *
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
This action by Park Motor Mart, Inc. et al. against Ford Motor Company et al., claiming breach of fiduciary duty, was brought in the Maine Superior Court and removed to the District Court on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Park was a Ford dealer, operating under a franchise agreement with Ford which gave Ford full access to Park's financial figures. The contract contained provisions with respect to the confidentiality of this financial information. The complaint alleges that in May 1977 Ford, as a result of an audit, "altered its relationship with Park;" that Ford knew that public knowledge of this fact "would prove disasterous to the continued conduct of the Plaintiff's business;" that under the agreement this information should have been kept confidential, but was, together with "the details of (other) problems which existed between Park . . . and Ford," disclosed by an official of Ford to a female companion, who caused the information to be spread throughout the community, to the damage of Park's "business, its reputation, and its ability to continue operating as a going concern." Ford denied these allegations
Page 604
but, after a number of depositions had been taken, moved for summary judgment on the ground that its alleged disclosure was not in violation of the dealership agreement.The court referred this motion to a magistrate who, after a hearing, made findings and a recommendation ending as follows.
Park . . . appears to urge that a duty of confidentiality as to Ford audits of dealers should be implied into the agreement. The legal basis for such a duty is nowhere explicated. Park has filed no memorandum in opposition to Ford's motion, in violation of Local Rule 19(b), and not a shred of authority has been presented to the Court to support Park's theory.
Because plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (the complaint) should be dismissed.
The magistrate's recommendation was filed August 2, 1979. On September 5, nothing further having been filed, the court entered an order which, after referring to the magistrate's report and recommendation and noting that no party had "filed any objection to the Magistrate's report and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 7(c)," approved the recommendation and dismissed the action. Plaintiffs appealed. Defendants move to dismiss the appeal because of plaintiffs' "failure to make any objection to the Recommended Decision on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment."
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment), various matters may be assigned to magistrates, with differing consequences. Under subsection (b)(1)(A) certain pretrial matters may be decided without further reference to the district judge, but the judge "may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coors Brewing Co. v. Mendez–torres, Civil No. 06–2150(DRD).
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378–79 (1st Cir.1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980).--------Notes: 1. As noted by the First Circuit, in 1978, Puerto Rico adjusted the excise tax on beer to distinguish between small......
-
Excel Home Care v. U.S. Dept. of Hhs, No. CIV.A.03-CV-11767-GA.
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir.1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 Collings, United States Magistrate Judge. --------------- No......
-
Noone v. Town of Palmer, C.A. No. 12–CV–30206–MAP.
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378–79 (1st Cir.1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 604 (1st Cir.1980). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154–55, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). A party may respond to another party's o......
-
Forestier-Figueroa v. United States, CIVIL 14-1023 (PG)
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir. 1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-79 (1st Cir. 1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980). In San Juan Puerto Rico this 30th day of March, 2015. S/ JUSTO ARENAS United States Magistrate Judge--------Footnotes: 1. Poli......
-
Coors Brewing Co. v. Mendez–torres, Civil No. 06–2150(DRD).
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378–79 (1st Cir.1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980).--------Notes: 1. As noted by the First Circuit, in 1978, Puerto Rico adjusted the excise tax on beer to distinguish between small......
-
Excel Home Care v. U.S. Dept. of Hhs, CIV.A.03-CV-11767-GA.
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-379 (1st Cir.1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 Collings, United States Magistrate Judge. --------------- No......
-
Noone v. Town of Palmer, C.A. No. 12–CV–30206–MAP.
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir.1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378–79 (1st Cir.1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 604 (1st Cir.1980). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154–55, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). A party may respond to another party's o......
-
Forestier-Figueroa v. United States, CIVIL 14-1023 (PG)
...702 F.2d 13, 14 (1st Cir. 1983); United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-79 (1st Cir. 1982); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980). In San Juan Puerto Rico this 30th day of March, 2015. S/ JUSTO ARENAS United States Magistrate Judge--------Footnotes: 1. Poli......