Opinion ID: 2982304
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Reading of Metz and Bandy

Text: Plaintiffs raise several arguments in an effort to persuade the court that Metz, Bandy, and Mattlin do not control. They first insist that one particular sentence from Metz establishes that - 11 - Case No. 13-3493 Pate et al. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, et al. they are entitled to the benefit of § 2305.09’s discovery rule. In the section of the opinion concluding that the Metz plaintiffs had failed to plead UCC conversion claims, the opinion noted, “Plaintiffs cannot possibly re-characterize their claims to make use of the discovery rule in § 2305.09.” 649 F.3d at 497. From this, Plaintiffs deduce that, if they had presented claims for UCC conversion, the statutory discovery rule would necessarily apply. This reading must fail, for three reasons. First, immediately following this sentence, Metz went on to hold that the discovery rule categorically did not apply to the three-year statute of limitations for various UCC claims, set forth at § 1303.16(G). Id. at 497–98. This unambiguous conclusion dispels any suggestion that § 2305.09 might apply to a claim for UCC conversion of an instrument, because this cause of action is specifically identified in § 1303.16(G). Next, as the district court pointed out, the Bandy panel—consisting of the same judges who decided Metz—expressly rejected the Plaintiffs’ reading of Metz. 519 F. App’x at 903. Finally, Mattlin also firmly establishes that the discovery rule does not toll the three-year statute of limitations for UCC conversion claims. See 937 N.E.2d at 1091.