Case Name: GLOBAL CROSSING BANDWIDTH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBAL TELESYS CORPORATION and Glen M. Gallant, Defendants-Appellees, Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sequel Communications, Inc., Defendant, Richard SIY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-21
Citations: 83 F. App'x 32
Docket Number: No. 02-1904, 02-1907
Parties: GLOBAL CROSSING BANDWIDTH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBAL TELESYS CORPORATION and Glen M. Gallant, Defendants-Appellees, Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sequel Communications, Inc., Defendant, Richard SIY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 83
Pages: 32–33

Head Matter:
GLOBAL CROSSING BANDWIDTH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLOBAL TELESYS CORPORATION and Glen M. Gallant, Defendants-Appellees, Global Crossing Bandwidth, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sequel Communications, Inc., Defendant, Richard SIY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1904, 02-1907.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2003.
Erie A. Linden, Melanie T. LaFave, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Donald W. Myers, Michael P. Coakley, Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, Detroit, MI, Judith A. Jarvis, Daniel N. Eckstein, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Judges, and HOOD, District Judge.
The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the district court's dismissal of Appellant's claims against Glen M. Gallant and Richard Siy seeking to hold them responsible as individuals for the obligations incurred by their corporations. 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 its dismissal of these cases.
Because the reasoning which supports the dismissal of these actions 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 Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to Appellee Siy dated June 14, 2002 and in its Order dismissing the action against Appellee Gallant dated June 18, 2002.