Hatemi v. M&T Bank
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
633 F. App’x 47 (2016)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
Lachin Hatemi (plaintiff) opened an account with M&T Bank (M&T) (defendant) and signed an account agreement containing an arbitration clause. Pursuant to the arbitration clause, arbitration was mandated for any disputes or controversies arising out of or related to Hatemi’s account, any service provided by M&T in connection with the account, any matter relating to either party’s obligations within the account agreement, or any matter relating to either party’s obligations in any other agreement relating to Hatemi’s account. Hatemi sued M&T in federal district court, alleging that he was improperly subscribed to M&T’s overdraft-protection plan and subjected to fees contained within the protection plan. The district court denied M&T’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. M&T appealed. Hatemi argued that there were factual disputes relating to whether an overdraft-protection agreement existed between him and M&T and, if an overdraft-protection agreement existed, whether it was incorporated into the account agreement containing the arbitration clause.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Gorsuch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
