Rochester Lincoln-Mercury v. Ford

2000 DNH 113

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: May 10, 2000
• Docket: CV-99-545-M
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rochester Lincoln-Mercury v. Ford CV-99-545-M 05/10/00 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rochester Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Plaintiff

v.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant

AND Civil No. 99-545-M (Consolidated Cases) Opinion No. 2000 DNH 113

Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. and Meredith S.Pierce, Trustee of J. Pierce Trust,

O R D E R

Having reviewed the defendant Ford Motor Company's motion to

dismiss the complaint filed against it by Rochester Lincoln-

Mercury, Inc. (RLM), and the parties' respective legal memoranda.

the court grants Ford's motion. RLM sues Ford for violating the provisions of N.H. Rev.

Stat. Ann. ("RSA") Ch. 357-C (the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act),

which governs the business relationships among motor vehicle

manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. It is clear, however,

that RLM, as a prospective franchise of Ford relative to its

hoped for acquisition of an available Ford franchise in

Rochester, New Hampshire, lacks standing to sue under RSA Ch.

357-C. See Roberts v. General Motors Corp., 138 N.H. 532 (1994)

RLM's effort to distinguish Roberts on grounds that an automobil

manufacturer's current franchisees are in a substantively

different position than non-franchisees when seeking to obtain

additional franchises is unpersuasive. With respect to RLM's

effort to acquire a Ford franchise different from the one it

already owned, RLM, like others with no relationship to Ford,

stood as merely a prospective franchisee. The New Hampshire

Supreme Court's holding in Roberts, declaring prospective

franchisees to be without standing to bring claims under RSA Ch.

357-C, is controlling and requires dismissal of RLM's complaint

for lack of standing. Conclusion

Defendant's motion to dismiss RDM's complaint (document no.

9) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge May 10, 2000

cc: Daniel A. Laufer, Esq. Peter J. Duffy, Esq. James E. Higgins, Esq. Brian R. Barrington, Esq