Opinion
22-3387
01-10-2023
DUANE RAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A., dba Fifth Third Bank, Defendant, FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS, CORP., Defendant-Appellant.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
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.
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.