Joseph Bozek, et al v. Bank of America, N.A., et al
Filing
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Diane P. Wood, Chief Judge; Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge and Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. [6834088-1] [6834088] [16-3917]
Case: 16-3917
Document: 24
Filed: 04/14/2017
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Pages: 2
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 13, 2017*
Decided April 14, 2017
Before
No. 16-‐‑3917
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 16 C 3100
Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.
JOSEF BOZEK and EVA BOZEK,
Plaintiffs-‐‑Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants-‐‑Appellees.
Order
A state judge ordered the home of Josef and Eva Bozek sold in foreclosure. In this
federal suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
§1964(c), and other federal statutes, the Bozeks accuse their lender and other financial
institutions of racketeering and discrimination. They sought a federal injunction against
the sale that the state court ordered. The district judge declined to enjoin the sale, and
* We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and argument are adequate-‐‑
ly presented in the briefs and record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Case: 16-3917
No. 16-‐‑3917
Document: 24
Filed: 04/14/2017
Pages: 2
Page 2
although the federal suit remains pending the Bozeks immediately appealed on the au-‐‑
thority of 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1).
The Bozeks’ home was sold in October 2016, and a state judge confirmed the sale the
following month. See 735 ILCS 5/15-‐‑1508. Appellees contend that this moots the federal
suit, but it does not, if only because the appellate judiciary of Illinois might reverse or
modify the order confirming the sale. And a federal court could in principle order the
sale undone. A case is not moot as long as some relief is possible, see Campbell-‐‑Ewald Co.
v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 669 (2016), and that’s true of the Bozeks’ situation.
This is as far as they get, however, because a federal injunction precluding enforce-‐‑
ment of a state court’s order is forbidden by the Anti-‐‑Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. §2283.
None of that statute’s three exceptions—injunctive relief “expressly authorized by Act
of Congress, or where necessary in aid of [the federal court’s] jurisdiction, or to protect
or effectuate its judgments”—applies to the Bozeks’ request. They contend that the state
court lacks jurisdiction and that there are other defects in the foreclosure proceeding,
but those defenses must be presented to and resolved by the state court.
AFFIRMED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?