Remona Charles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 23-2709 (7th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted April 4, 2024 * Decided April 5, 2024 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge No. 23-2709 REMONA L. CHARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. No. 22-C-0637 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee. Lynn Adelman, Judge. ORDER Remona Charles sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging that the bank illegally purchased collateral-protection insurance on her behalf and wrongly reported the status of her auto loan to credit-reporting agencies in violation of federal and state statutes. See Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); Bank We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). * No. 23-2709 Page 2 Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1972; 11 U.S.C. § 524(a); Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; WIS. STAT. § 425.205. The district court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). The court concluded that many of Charles’s claims were precluded by a class action settlement, that her claim concerning a bankruptcy injunction must be brought in bankruptcy court, and that Charles otherwise failed to state a claim for relief. On appeal, Charles has filed a brief that recounts the allegations of her complaint but nowhere engages the district court’s reasoning or provides any meaningful basis to disturb the judgment. Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a brief contain the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Although we are mindful that Charles is representing herself on appeal, it is not our role to craft parties’ arguments for them, and even self-represented parties must comply with Rule 28(a). See Atkins v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022). DISMISSED

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.