In re: BIG BUCK BREWERY & STEAKHOUSE, INCORPORATED v. Big Buck Brewery & Steakhouse, Incorporated

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0003n.06
No. 09-1124
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
In re: BIG BUCK BREWERY &
STEAKHOUSE, INCORPORATED,
Debtor.
______________________________________
MICHAEL G. EYDE; EYDE BROTHERS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; and
LAND ONE, LLC,
Appellants,
v.
BIG BUCK BREWERY & STEAKHOUSE,
INCORPORATED,
Appellee.
______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OPINION
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, COLE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. In this adversary proceeding filed in bankruptcy
court, the debtor, Big Buck Brewery & Steakhouse, Inc. (Big Buck), sought declaratory relief against
Michael G. Eyde; Eyde Brothers Development Company, LLC; and Land One, LLC (collectively,
Eyde). Big Buck requested a declaration that it had met its obligations to return the premises leased
from Eyde under the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement between the parties. Eyde
counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and waste. After a six-day trial,

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
the bankruptcy court found in favor of Eyde concerning one of its breach-of-contract counterclaims,
granting judgment in the amount of $13,640.00. Regarding Eyde’s claim that Big Buck was liable
for the remediation of black mold found on the premises upon Big Buck’s move out, however, the
court found in favor of Big Buck. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. Eyde
now appeals, arguing that the lower courts failed to follow Michigan law on contract interpretation
and misconstrued the provision of the Settlement Agreement that required Big Buck to “leave the
Premises in a safe condition.”
After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable
law, we conclude that “the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and
record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.” See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). We agree with the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of the
bankruptcy court. Because the reasoning that supports the judgment for Big Buck on the appealed
issue has been clearly articulated by the district court in its opinion, the issuance of a detailed written
opinion by us would be unduly duplicative. The judgment rendered by the Honorable George Caram
Steeh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is therefore affirmed
on the basis of the reasoning detailed in his Opinion dated January 8, 2009.

-- 2 of 2 --