UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

COLONIAL DODGE, INCORPORATED, a
Maryland corporation; WHEATON
DODGE CITY, INCORPORATED, a
Maryland corporation; LAKE FOREST
CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INCORPORATED,
a Maryland corporation; FITZGERALD
AUTO MALL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
                                                                   No. 97-1024
Fitzgerald Dodge,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CA-95-562-CCB)

Argued: July 9, 1997

Decided: August 5, 1997

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Walter Eugene Forehand, MYERS, FOREHAND &
FULLER, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellants. Robert Donald Cul-
tice, Jr., GOLDSTEIN & MANELLO, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts,
for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Daniel E. Myers, Loula M. Fuller,
MYERS, FOREHAND & FULLER, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appel-
lants. Louis J. Scerra, Jr., Jonathan D. Cohen, GOLDSTEIN &
MANELLO, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts; Ty Cobb, Douglas R. M.
Nazarian, HOGAN & HARTSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-
lee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On February 27, 1995, Plaintiffs/Appellants, Colonial Dodge, Inc.,
Wheaton Dodge City, Inc., Lake Forest Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., and
Fitzgerald Dodge (the Dealers) filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against Chrysler Corpora-
tion. Each of the seven counts in the Dealers' complaint was based
on Chrysler's alleged unfair distribution (malallocation) of vehicles in
violation of the Automobile Dealers' Day In Court Act (ADDCA),
see 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1221, et seq. (Count I); the Maryland Dealers' Act
(MDA), see Md. Code Ann., Transp. §§ 15-207 & 15-208 (Count II);
and certain common-law duties (Counts III-VII).

Following protracted discovery by both parties, Chrysler filed two
motions for summary judgment -- one based on the Dealers' failure
to adduce any evidence of coercion, a necessary element of a claim
under both the ADDCA and the MDA (Counts I-II), and the other
based on the Dealers' failure to adduce any evidence that they ever
ordered the specific vehicles they now claim were wrongfully with-
held, a necessary element of malallocation (Counts I-VII). After
extensive briefing and oral argument, the district court issued an order
granting Chrysler's motions for summary judgment.

                    2
The Dealers appeal the district court's order, arguing that Chrys-
ler's requirement that they accept hard-to-sell vehicles in order to
receive fast-selling vehicles was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of
material fact on the issue of coercion. The Dealers also argue that
their evidence demonstrating that other Chrysler dealerships received
more vehicles is such that a jury could rationally infer that Chrysler
engaged in the malallocation of vehicles.

We have reviewed the record, briefs, and pertinent case law in this
matter, and we have had the benefit of oral argument. Our review per-
suades us that the rulings of the district court were correct. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning set forth in the district court's
thorough opinion. See Colonial Dodge, Inc., v. Chrysler Corp., C.A.
No. CCB-95-562 (D. Md. Dec. 12, 1996).

AFFIRMED

                     3
