
    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.
    No. 04-1069.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Feb. 25, 2005.
    Daniel M. Share, Eugene Driker, Erica L. Fitzgerald, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Lisa A. Robinson, Robert A. Marsac, Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, Detroit, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BATCHELDER and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; and O’KELLEY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable William C. O'Kelley, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    
   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 D efendant-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 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.  