Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fifth Third Bank v. Robert H. Hirsch

June 20, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall


Plaintiff Fifth Third Bank ("Fifth Third") brought suit against Defendant Robert H. Hirsch ("Hirsh"), individually and doing business as Law Offices of Robert H. Hirsch, seeking damages that arose from Hirsch presenting a defective cashier's check to Fifth Third. Hirsch moved to join Citibank N.A. ("Citibank") as an indispensable third party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and this Court denied that motion. Hirsch then filed a one-count Third Party Complaint against Citibank for failing to comply with Illinois law's midnight rule, which makes payor banks liable for not timely dishonoring counterfeit checks. Citibank moves to dismiss the Third Party Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Citibank also seeks sanctions against Hirsch for asserting a frivolous claim against it. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss and denies the Motion for Sanctions.


At this initial stage, the Court takes the allegations asserted in the Third Party Complaint as true. See Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1995). Hirsch relies extensively on the allegations Fifth Third made against him in the original lawsuit to shape his claim against Citibank.

Hirsch, an attorney, received an email from Ms. Julie Kobayashi ("Kobayashi") on May 5, 2010, indicating that she was interested in having him represent her in a marital dispute. (Third Party Compl. ¶ 10.) Hirsch never met Kobayashi and based on email communications agreed to represent her in enforcing a settlement agreement against her ex-husband, Michael Newberg ("Newberg"). (Id. ¶ 12.) Hirsch eventually received a $298,500 cashier's check, supposedly from Newberg, to be drawn on Citibank. (Id. ¶ 15.) Kobayashi instructed Hirsch to wire transfer $269,500 of the funds to a Japanese bank and keep $29,000 as payment for his representation. (Id. ¶ 17.)

On June 3, 2010, Hirsch deposited the $298,500 cashier's check into his IOLTA client trust account at a Fifth Third Bank in Chicago, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 18.) Later that day Fifth Third provisionally credited Hirsch's account. (Id. ¶ 19.) Hirsch executed Kobayashi's wire transfer instructions on June 5, directing Fifth Third to wire $269,500 from his Fifth Third account to the Japanese bank. (Id. ¶ 20.) As part of the Wire Transfer Agreement between Hirsch and Fifth Third, when asked if the wire transfer was being sent to someone he met over the internet, Hirsch answered "no." (Id. ¶ 21.)

Fifth Third wired these funds to the Japanese bank on Monday, June 7, and that evening Citibank sent Fifth Third notification that the cashier's check was counterfeit. (Id. ¶¶ 22, 23.) Fifth Third received this notification on the morning of June 8, but this was too late to reverse the wire transfer. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 25.) Hirsch claims that Citibank received the counterfeit check on Friday, June 4, and untimely sent its notification that the check was defective on Monday, June 7 because, under the "midnight rule," it should have been done by Saturday, June 5. (Id. ¶ 39.)


To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "Detailed factual allegations" are not required, but the plaintiff must allege facts that, when "accepted as true . . . 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In analyzing whether a complaint has met this standard, the "reviewing court [must] draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court assumes their veracity and then determines if they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate for complaints that "do not state legally cognizable claims, including the situation in which the plaintiff pleads himself out of court by making allegations sufficient to defeat the suit." Vincent v. City Colleges of Chicago, 485 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2007); Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753-54 (7th Cir. 2002).


I. Midnight Rule Claim

Citibank moves to dismiss the Third Party Complaint because the allegations establish that Citibank dishonored the counterfeit check within the time period required under the "midnight rule."

Under Illinois law, the "midnight rule" sets forth the time requirements for a payor bank to send a notice of dishonor for a faulty instrument. To appropriately dishonor the cashier's check (and escape liability for the amount of the check), Citibank had to send Fifth Third a notice of dishonor before midnight "on the next banking day after the banking day on which [Citibank] received the check." Oak Brook Bank v. Northern Trust Co., 256 F.3d 638, 639 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added); see 810 ILCS 5/4-302(a)(1), 5/4-104(a)(10). Here, the Third Party Complaint, by alleging that the "midnight deadline" for Citibank was Saturday, June 5, 2010, implies that Citibank received the counterfeit check on Friday, June 4. Hirsch's response brief also specifically notes that the Federal Reserve Bank sent the faulty check to Citibank on June 4. According to the midnight rule, Citibank therefore had until midnight on the next "banking day" to send its notice of dishonor, otherwise it would be liable for the value of the check.

The Third Party Complaint alleges that by sending notification of dishonor on the evening of Monday, June 7-three days after receiving the check-Citibank untimely notified Fifth Third that it was dishonoring the check, and as such is liable for the amount of the check. This argument, however, assumes that Saturdays are "banking days," such that a check received on Friday must be dishonored by midnight on Saturday. Under Illinois law, a "banking day" is a day when the bank is "open to the public for carrying on substantially all of its banking functions, except that any day that is not a banking day for purposes of Federal Reserve Regulation CC (as modified from time to time) shall not be a banking day for purposes of this Article." ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.