Duane Ray v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A., dba Fifth Third Bank

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0018n.06
Case No. 22-3387
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DUANE RAY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A., dba Fifth Third
Bank,
Defendant,
FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS, CORP.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
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.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-3387, Ray v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., et al.
2
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 of 2 --