USCA1 Opinion

                         [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________





No. 97-1710

 



                        ANDREW J. LANE, ET AL.,



                        Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                  v.



                 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,



                         Defendant, Appellee.



                         ____________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



            [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before



                        Torruella, Chief Judge,

                     Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.

                         ____________________



    Andrew M. Porter, Isaac H. Peres and Franchek & Porter, LLP on brief

for appellant.

    Sabin Willett, Richelle S. Kennedy and Bingham Dana LLP on brief for

appellee.





                         ____________________



                            March 31, 1998

                         ____________________









      Per Curiam.  Essentially for the reasons stated by the

    district court in its ruling on April 30, 1997, we conclude

    that the complaint properly was dismissed.  

        We add only this comment.  The Massachusetts state court

    already has expressed a view of the definition and duties of a

    "competitor," which view is contrary to that advocated here by

    plaintiffs.  Doliner v. Brown, 21 Mass. App. 692, 695, 489

    N.E.2d 1036, 1038-39 (1986).  In the context of this

    Massachusetts dispute, we have no reason to impose the

    differing view of a court of another state.  See Dolton v.

    Capital Federal Savings & Loan Assoc., 642 P.2d 21, 23 (Colo.

    App. 1981).

        Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.