County of Cook, IL v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 1:2014cv09548 - Document 749 (N.D. Ill. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 9/20/2023: Mailed notice(maf)

Download PDF
County of Cook, IL v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al. Doc. 749 Case: 1:14-cv-09548 Document #: 749 Filed: 09/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:81591 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COUNTY OF COOK, Plaintiff, Case No. 14 C 9548 v. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber WELLS FARGO & CO., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Almost nine years ago in 2014, the County of Cook filed this Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”) case against Wells Fargo & Co., alleging “equity stripping” discriminatory resulting activities from dating an amalgam back to of 2003, predatory including origination, loan servicing, and loan foreclosure activities. activities according to Cook County violated the FHA. moved for summary judgment which was granted. and loan These Wells Fargo Cook County moves to alter or amend the judgment. Pending at the same time as this case was County of Cook v. Bank of America Corp, et al., 584 F.Supp. 3d 562 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2022) presided over by a different judge. Bank of America made the same motions in that case as Wells Fargo made in this case. results in both cases were the same. The The expert reports of the County’s two experts were rejected, and summary judgment was granted to the banks. The only procedural difference is the County did not Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:14-cv-09548 Document #: 749 Filed: 09/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:81592 seek to alter or amend as it did here, but instead filed a direct appeal to the Seventh Circuit. On August 16, 2023, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Summary Judgment issued in Bank of America. County of Cook v. Bank of America Corporation, 78 F.4th 970 (7th Cir. 2023). decided the case on alternative grounds: However, it a lack of proximate causation. The court specifically held that the claims of the County were too remote to be cognizable under the FHA. In so deciding the court noted that none of the specific arguments made by the County “matter[ed] to the outcome.” The only correct plaintiffs would be the borrowers. The summary judgment was therefore affirmed. Based on such clear precedent (the County has never sought to distinguish the Bank of America case), the summary judgment entered by Judge Feinerman is correct and the Motion to Alter or Amend denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Alter or Amend the orders striking the County’s expert witness and the motion for summary judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge United States District Court Dated: 9/20/2023 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.