Bruce Gershenson, as trustee of the William Gershenson Trust v. United Capital Corporation

*The Honorable William C. O’Kelley, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting
by designation.
1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0156n.06
Filed: February 25, 2005
Case No. 04-1069
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE GERSHENSON, as trustee of the
William Gershenson Trust; WILLIAM
WILLIAM GERSHENSON TRUST;
BERNICE GERSHENSON, Co-trustee of the
Aaron H. Gershenson Trust; IRA J. JAFFE,
Co-trustee of the Aaron H. Gershenson
Trust; AARON H. AARON H.
GERSHENSON TRUST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; O’KELLEY,* District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Bruce Gershenson and
other trustees of the William Gershenson Trust (collectively, “the Gershensons”) appeal the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee United Capital Corporation in this
diversity action raising issues under Michigan state law. Specifically, the Gershensons argue that
the district court erred in the following ways: 1) by ruling that the Gershensons did not provide

-- 1 of 2 --

2
legally operative notice of their intention to exercise an option to extend the primary lease at issue
in this case; 2) by declining to equitably renew the Gershensons’ option to extend the primary lease;
and 3) by denying the Gershensons’ claim of unjust enrichment.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and counsels’
arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district
court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly
articulates the reasons underlying its decision, 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 of 2 --