Opinion ID: 2820192
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Experiences and the ACRL Hotline

Text: We first consider the experience of the named Plaintiffs—Ali El-Hallani and Mark Manuaeel. Huntington treated both Plaintiffs similarly: they had accounts with Huntington, and had their accounts closed suddenly and without explanation. And nothing in the allegations suggests that either closing was for cause.47 Huntington’s closing of other accounts around the same time lends additional weight to El-Hallani’s and Manuaeel’s assertions. The ACRL hotline identified at least twenty-five Arab or Middle Eastern individuals who had their Huntington accounts closed, and Plaintiffs alleged as much in their complaint.48 Huntington’s closing of more than twenty-five accounts supports Plaintiffs’ claims that these closings were done because of the race of the account holders, rather than for some other reason. Plaintiffs’ allegations show more than being merely “consistent with liability.”49 The district court correctly gave little weight to Plaintiffs’ argument about the ACRL’s lack of complaints received from non-Arab customers.50 That no non-Arab customers called a hotline sponsored by the Arab American Civil Rights League is hardly surprising. But this misses a more important, and more obvious, point: at least twenty-five Arab people did call the hotline and complain about Huntington closing their accounts without warning or explanation. 47 This makes two of the cases relied on by the district court distinguishable. In 16630 Southfield, 727 F.3d 502, the plaintiffs had previously defaulted on a loan. And in Mekuria v. Bank of America, 883 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2011), the bank notified the plaintiff that it had identified several problems with the paperwork accompanying the plaintiff’s deposits before it ultimately closed his accounts. Thus, there were obvious and legitimate alternative explanations in the complaints themselves for those plaintiffs’ accounts to have been closed. 48 See R. 23, Second Amended Class Action Complaint ¶¶ 10, 31–32 (citing R.23-3, Ex. B to Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Affidavit of Samia Sareini)). 49 See El-Hallani, 2014 WL 988957, at . 50 See id. -9- No. 14-1827, El-Hallani, et al. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank At this initial stage, this cluster of account closures sufficiently supports an inference that the closures were done for discriminatory purposes rather than proper business reasons. The district court was incorrect, however, when it found that Plaintiffs’ failure to provide specific information about these other twenty-five accounts turned the pleading into a “bald assertion.”51 Class action litigation allows the named plaintiffs to protect the rights of many without imposing the burdens of litigation on the entire class. 52 The district court’s request for more information about the class members at this stage is in tension with this goal. Although Plaintiffs will likely need to present more information about other potential class members to achieve certification,53 at this stage of the litigation it is enough that Plaintiffs have identified numerous potential class members and have put Huntington on notice that they exist.54 Even without the allegations regarding twenty-five additional individuals, though, the complaint should still have survived the motion to dismiss. As explained below,55 the key allegations that make Plaintiffs’ claims plausible are (1) the affidavit from a former Huntington employee describing account closures, and (2) the apparent illogic of willy-nilly cancelling business accounts. Identifying a sizable group of similarly affected people makes it less likely that Plaintiffs El-Hallani and Manuaeel share some additional characteristic other than their race or ethnicity that caused Huntington to close their accounts, and makes it more likely that the 51 See El-Hallani, 2014 WL 2217237 at  (“[T]he Court is left to wonder why the twenty-five other individuals have failed to come forward with any additional facts to support this litigation.”). 52 See 7A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Civil § 1751 (3d ed. 2014). 53 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) (requiring, among other things, the class representatives to demonstrate that their claims are typical of the class and share common questions of law or fact). 54 See Federal Judicial Center, Manual for Complex Litigation, §§ 21.13–14 (4th ed. 2004). 55 See infra Sections III.C.2–3. - 10 - No. 14-1827, El-Hallani, et al. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank decision to close El-Hallani’s and Manuaeel’s accounts was due to some systematic policy of Huntington.