Case Name: TEKONSHA ENGINEERING CO., INC., a Michigan corporation, and Theodore Bargman Co., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C.W. INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-14
Citations: 121 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 04-1200
Parties: TEKONSHA ENGINEERING CO., INC., a Michigan corporation, and Theodore Bargman Co., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C.W. INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NORRIS, GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and TODD, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 117–117

Head Matter:
TEKONSHA ENGINEERING CO., INC., a Michigan corporation, and Theodore Bargman Co., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C.W. INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-1200.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 14, 2005.
Christopher A. Chekan, Troy, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Before NORRIS, GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; and TODD, District Judge.
The Honorable James D. Todd, Chief United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
In this breach of contract case, founded upon diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, plaintiffs, Tekonsha Engineering Co., Inc., and Theodore Bargman Co., appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, C.W. Industries, Inc.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.
Because the reasoning which supports judgment for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its well-reasoned opinion dated January 26, 2004.