Opinion ID: 2820192
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Alternative Explanation

Text: Plaintiffs have pointed to Huntington’s refusal to explain the account closures as evidence of an improper motive.66 Although Huntington has not and is not required to offer an alternative explanation in order to win a motion to dismiss, closing a large number of Arabowned business accounts raises the plausibility of unlawful, discriminatory motivation, particularly given the competitive banking-business environment.67 Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs’ claims seem more plausible.68 If there were a legitimate reason to close these accounts, such as a loan default or other dispute, Huntington likely would have specified it.69 Furthermore even if Huntington had provided such an explanation, “the mere existence of an ‘eminently plausible’ alternative, lawful explanation for a defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct is not enough to dismiss an adequately pled complaint because pleadings need only be ‘plausible, not probable.’”70 N.A., No. 12-cv-13550, 2013 WL 3810255 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 2013), based his complaint of discrimination solely on his own information and belief that the bank had discriminated against him. 66 See R. 23, Second Amended Class Action Complaint ¶¶ 27, 39. 67 Huntington’s counsel agreed during oral argument that there is competition between banks for accounts. As explained above, the affidavit of Hussein Dabaja suggests that both business and personal accounts held by people who are Arab or of Middle Eastern descent were closed, which makes the situation even more unusual. See supra Section III.C.2. 68 Cf. 16630 Southfield, 727 F.3d at 505 (“The reasonableness of one explanation for an incident depends, in part, on the strength of competing explanations.”). 69 The affidavit from Hussein Dabaja that Plaintiffs attached to their Second Amended Complaint suggests that anti-money laundering concerns may have played a role in closing the accounts. See R. 23-4, Ex. C to Second Amended Class Action Complaint ¶ 12 (Affidavit of Hussein Dabaja). 70 HDC, 675 F.3d at 613 (quoting Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F.3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2011)); see also 16630 Southfield, 727 F.3d at 505 (“[I]f a plaintiff's claim is plausible, the availability of other explanations—even more likely explanations—does not bar the door to discovery.”). - 13 - No. 14-1827, El-Hallani, et al. v. Huntington Nat’l Bank