United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:10-cv-02348—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
ARGUED OCTOBER 26, 2011—DECIDED MARCH 7, 2012
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. We are asked in this appeal
to determine whether Lori Wigod has stated claims
under Illinois law against her home mortgage servicer
for refusing to modify her loan pursuant to the federal
Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).
She brought this putative class action alleging violations
of Illinois law under common-law contract and tort
theories and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The district
court dismissed the complaint in its entirety under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This appeal followed, and it presents two sets of issues.
The first set of issues concerns whether Wigod
has stated viable claims under Illinois common law and
the ICFA. We conclude that she has on four counts …
These allegations support garden-variety
claims for breach of contract or promissory estoppel.
She has also plausibly alleged that Wells Fargo com-
mitted fraud under Illinois common law and engaged in
unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of the
The second set of issues concerns whether these
state-law claims are preempted or otherwise barred by
federal law. We hold that they are not.
We accordingly reverse the judgment of
the district court on the contract, promissory estoppel,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and ICFA claims …
The judgment of the district court is therefore
REVERSEDas to Counts I, II, and VII, and the
fraudulent misrepresentation claim of Count V …
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I am very pleased
to join the excellent opinion of the court written by
Judge Hamilton. I write separately only to note that, in
my view, our task of adjudicating this matter would
have been assisted significantly if the United States had
entered this case as an amicus curiae.
In this case, this last consideration justifies the
decision to proceed without further delay. Prompt resolution
of this matter is necessary not only for the good
of the litigants but for the good of the Country.