David Petroskey v. C.A. Picard, Inc.


OPINION filed : The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Order dated September 10, 2012, decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Circuit Judge; Karen Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge and John M. Rogers, (Authoring) Circuit Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 12-4202 Document: 006111698226 Filed: 05/22/2013 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0515n.06 FILED No. 12-4202 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DAVID E. PETROSKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. PICARD, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) May 22, 2013 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BEFORE: SILER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. David Petroskey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, C.A. Picard, Inc., on his claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. The dispute centers around Petroskey’s claims that Picard owes him compensation for bonuses and/or commissions he earned or should have earned during his time working for Picard. In July 2005, Petroskey entered into an agreement to waive commissions he had previously earned and accepted a new employment agreement that included an increase in salary, a car allowance, and an “Annual Bonus (effective July 1 05- to Jun 20 06), per plan to be presented by Mark Fink, President.” In 2009, after ending his employment with Picard, Petroskey filed a complaint in Ohio state court claiming (1) that Picard breached the agreement by failing to provide a bonus plan or sufficient bonus compensation, (2) that in the alternative Picard should be held liable on the basis of an oral promise made prior to or contemporaneously with the Case: 12-4202 Document: 006111698226 Filed: 05/22/2013 Page: 2 No. 12-4202 David Petroskey v. C.A. Picard, Inc. execution of the agreement, or else (3) that Petroskey should be awarded the waived commissions on a theory of unjust enrichment. Picard removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment to Picard on all of the claims. Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Picard. Because the reasoning that supports the grant of summary judgment has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Order dated September 10, 2012. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?