File Na me: 12a0473n.06 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 10-4357 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T MARK E. DOTTO RE, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. THE HUN TI

NGTON NATI ONAL

BA NK, Def endant- Appellant. ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N ORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

/ Be fore : KEI TH, MARTI N, and B OGGS, Circuit J udg es. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. The Huntington National Ba nk appea ls the district court’s de nial of Hunting ton’s motion to compel arbitration in a ca se re g ardinginvestment fra ud. David Dada

nte alleg edly opera

ted an investment fund that was actua l l y a Ponz i scheme

. I n the matter befor e this Court, Mark Dottore, the rec eiver for the investment fund, alleg es that Huntington brea ched its duty of car e to the fund investors and aided Dada nte in committing fra

ud. Huntington moved to compel arbitration on this claim, arguing that there exis ts betwee n the parties an ag ree ment to arbitrate claims. The district court found there was no ag ree ment to arbitrate and denied Huntington’ s motion. Huntington appea ls, arguing that the district court err ed in finding there was

no arbitration ag ree ment. For the fo l l o wing rea sons, the judgme nt of the district court is AF F IRMED

.No. 10-4357

Dottore v. Huntington Nat’l Bank Pag e 2 “We revie w de novo a district court’s decisions re garding both the exis tence of a valid arbitration ag ree ment and the arbitra bility of a particula

r dispute.” Floss v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc. , 211 F.3d 306, 311 (6th Cir. 2000). “It is well set t l ed i n b o t h commerc ial and labor

case s that whether parties have ag ree d to submit a particular dispute to arbitration is ty pically an issue for judicial deter

mination.” Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters , 130 S. Ct. 2847, 2855 (2010) (alter ation and interna l quotation marks omitted). Whil e we rec og nize the fede ral policy favor ing arbitration, Moses H. Cone Mem ’l Hosp. v. Merc ury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983), “no matter how strong the fede ral policy favor s arbitration, arbitration is a matter of contra ct betwee n the parties, and o n e cannot be require d to submit to arbitration a dispute which it has not ag ree d to submit to arbitration.” Simon v. Pfizer, Inc. , 398 F.3d 765, 775 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omi tted); see also E.E.O.C. v. W affle House, Inc. , 534 U.S. 279, 294 (2002). We thus consider whether , under Ohio law, the parties have ag ree d to submit this disput e to ar bitration. Under Ohio contra ct law, “[t] he intent of the parties to a contra ct is presumed to reside in the lang uag e they chose to e mploy in the ag ree ment.” Kelly v. Med. Life I ns. Co. , 31 Ohio St. 3d 130, 132, 509 N.E.2d 411, 413 (Ohio 1987). “Contrac t integ ration provides that wher e the parties’ intent is soug ht to be asce rtained from sever al writing s, a prior writing will be reje cted in favor of a subsequent one if the latter writing contains the whole of the parties’ ag ree ment.” TRINOVA Corp.

v. Pilkington Bros., P.L.C. , 70 Ohio St. 3d 271, 275, 638 N.E.2d 572, 575 (Ohio 1994). Thus, when the latter writing “is complete and unambig uous on its fac e, parol evidenc e is inadmissible to show

a contra ry intent of the parties.” Id. ; see also State ex rel. Petro v. R.J. Rey nolds Tobacco Co. , 104No. 10-4357

Dottore v. Huntington Nat’l Bank Pag e 3 Ohio St. 3d 559, 564, 820 N.E.2d 910, 915 (Ohio 2004) ( “The purpose of contra ct construc tion is to eff ectuate the intent of the parties, and that intent is presumed to reside in the lang uag e they chose to employ in the ag ree ment. Courts resor t to extrinsi c evidenc e of the parties’ intent only wher e the lang uag e is unclea

r or ambig uous, or wher e the circ umstances surrounding the ag ree ment invest the lang uag e of the contra ct with a specia l meaning .” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). “A contra ct that appea

rs to be a complete and unambig uous statement of the parti es ’ co n trac tual intent is presumed to be an integ rate d writing .” Bellman v. Am. Int’l Grp. , 113 Ohio St. 3d 323, 326- 27, 865 N.E.2d 853, 857 (Ohio 2007). Where a contra ct is found to be integ rate d, courts conside r t he lang uag e of the contra ct alone to define the obligations by which the parties int en d ed t o b e b o u n d

. Id. , 865 N.E.2d at 856-57 (“The parol-e vidence rule

. . . assumes that the formal wr i t i n g ref lects the parties’ minds at a point of maxi mum resolution and, hence , that duties and restric tions that do not a

ppear in the written document wer e not intended by the parties to sur vive.” (alter ation and interna l quotation marks omitted)). When Dada

nte opened fund acc ounts with Gre a t L a k e s B a nk and Metropolitan Ba

nk in 2001, he signe d ag ree ments g overning the acc ounts. Neither party has been able to find the orig inal, signe d

acc ount agr ee ments, but they ag ree these documents did not include an arbitration ag ree ment. I n 2003, both Gre at L akes and Metropolitan merg ed into Sky Ba nk, succe eded in interest by Huntington. At the time of the mer g er, H untington sent notice s to all bank customers, attaching a document labe led “De posit Ac count Ag ree ment and Disclosure” which informed the rec ipients of the “ter ms and conditions” under which their acc ounts would now be g o v er n ed ; t h es e terms and conditions include an ag ree ment to arb i trate. I n 2005, Fr ank Reg albuto, a repr esenta tive of theNo. 10-4357

Dottore v. Huntington Nat’l Bank Pag e 4 inv estment fund, signe d and filed a chang e of signature with Huntington, substitut ing himself for Dada nte on the fund’s acc ount. The second pag e of the 2005 chang e of signature document is titled “YOU R DEPOSI T ACCOUNT TERMS AND CONDI TI ONS” and rea ds: “AGREEMEN T – These terms g overn the operation of this acc ount unless varie d or supplemented in writing

. . . . Eac h of y ou ag ree s . . . to the terms of this acc ount.” This document does not include an ag ree ment to arbitrate. We do not need to deter

mine whether the orig inal 2001 acc ount ag ree ments allow or prohibit

amen d m en t s s u ch as those in the 2003 notice or whether the parties wer e bound by the unsigne d 2003 notice of acco u n t t erms. No enfor cea ble arbitration ag ree ment exis ts betwee n the parties beca use the 2005 chang e of signature document g ov er n s t h e ac co unt and it does not include an ag ree ment t o arbitrate. This 2005 document is entitled “ac count terms and conditions.” The document provides an arr ay of terms and conditions to g overn various aspec ts of the operation of the

acc ount, including clauses reg arding “liability ,” “deposits,” “withdra wals,” “ACH and wire transfe rs,” “owne rship of [t h e ] a c c o u nt a n d b e n e f ic ia r y d e s ig n a ti o n , ” “ a me n d me nts and termination,” “dire ct deposits,” and “uncla imed funds.” The document does not incorporate any documents by ref ere nce. By its own terms, the document limit s the ag ree ment g overnin g t h e o p eration of the

acc ount to those terms and conditions contai n ed wi t h i n the document, “unless varie d or supplemented in writing .” I t has not b ee n . W e hold that the 2005 ag ree ment is “complete and unambig uous on its fac e” and evidenc es t h e p arties’ intent for the acc ount to be g overne d by this document. There fore , we do not consider outside evidenc e in our deter mination of the obliga

tions by which the parties intended to be bound. See TRINOVA Corp. , 70 Ohio St. 3d at 275, 638 N.E.2d at 575; Petro , 104 Ohio St. 3d at 564, 820 N.E.2d at 915.No. 10-4357

Dottore v. Huntington Nat’l Bank Pag e 5 Be cause the ag ree ment is complete and una mbiguous, Ohio law presumes it is integ rate d. See Bellman , 113 Ohio St. 3d at 3 2 6 -2 7 , 8 6 5 N.E.2d at 857. The integ rate d ag ree ment does not contain an ag ree ment to arbitrate. There fore , the district c ourt did not err in de ny ing Huntington’ s motion to compel arbitration. The judg ment of the district cour t is AF F IRMED

.