
    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.
    No. 09-1124.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Jan. 4, 2010.
    
      Before: SUHRHEINRICH, COLE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

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, 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, 399 B.R. 820.  