Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Majestic Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Huntington Bancshares Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

July 20, 2017

Majestic Building Maintenance, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, d/b/a The Huntington National Bank, Defendant-Appellee.

          Argued: June 21, 2017

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 2:15-cv-03023-James L. Graham, District Judge.

         ARGUED:

          Troy J. Doucet, DOUCET & ASSOCIATES, CO., L.P.A., Dublin, Ohio, for Appellant.

          Lisa M. Ghannoum, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

         ON BRIEF:

          Troy J. Doucet, Zachary T. Donovan, DOUCET & ASSOCIATES, CO., L.P.A., Dublin, Ohio, for Appellant.

          Lisa M. Ghannoum, Brett A. Wall, Kenneth G. Prabucki, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

          Before: SILER, CLAY, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          CLAY, Circuit Judge.

         Plaintiff Majestic Building Maintenance, Inc., appeals from the order entered by the district court granting the motion to dismiss of Defendant Huntington Bancshares, Inc., d/b/a The Huntington National Bank, thereby dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant for violating the Uniform Commercial Code, U.C.C. §§ 4-103(a), 4-401, codified as Ohio Revised Code, O.R.C. §§ 1304.03, 1304.30, whereby Defendant refused to assume liability for monies paid out of Plaintiff's bank account on four fraudulent checks.

         For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court's order of dismissal and REMAND with instructions to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint and conduct discovery.

         BACKGROUND

         A. Factual History

         Plaintiff specializes in commercial cleaning services. In November 2010, Plaintiff, through its president, Luther McNeil ("McNeil"), opened a business checking account with Defendant and received a "Master Services Agreement" ("Agreement") that contained the rules and regulations for business accounts. The section of the Agreement at issue in this case states:

[W]e have available certain products designed to discover or prevent unauthorized transactions, including unauthorized checks and ACH debits, forgeries, and alterations (all such activities referred to as "fraud"). While no such product is foolproof, we believe that the products we offer will reduce the risk of loss to you from fraud. You agree that if your account is eligible for those products and you choose not to avail yourself of them, then we will have no liability for any transaction that occurs on your account that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.