Court Opinion

ID: 9352991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 18:01:04.56739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:31.538745
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0018n.06

                                         Case No. 22-3387

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

 DUANE RAY,                                             )                          FILED
                                                        )                    Jan 10, 2023
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                            )                DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                        )
                v.                                      )
                                                        )     ON APPEAL FROM THE
 FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A., dba Fifth Third                )     UNITED STATES DISTRICT
 Bank,                                                  )     COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
         Defendant,                                     )     DISTRICT OF OHIO
                                                        )
 FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS, CORP.,                       )                                OPINION
                                                        )
       Defendant-Appellant.                             )
 _______________________________________

Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

       ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Foundation Risk Partners (FRP) bought

Fifth Third Insurance Agency’s (FTI’s) entire insurance business believing that purchase included

the non-compete agreements that FTI’s insurance agents had signed. But when FRP sought a

preliminary injunction to enforce the agreement, the district court found that FRP had not shown

a substantial likelihood that its interpretation of the relevant contracts was correct, and therefore

denied the preliminary injunction.    Ray v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., No. 1:21-cv-76, 2022 WL

974341 (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 31, 2022). In this interlocutory appeal, FRP contends that the district

court erred by refusing to re-write the employee-compensation-plan contract to say what FRP

believes was intended rather than what is actually written in that contract.
No. 22-3387, Ray v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., et al.

       After carefully reviewing the law, the parties’ arguments, and the record evidence, we

conclude that the district court correctly assessed the proffered evidence and correctly applied the

law to that evidence. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful

purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

                                                 2