Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Apr. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 13, 2017* Decided April 14, 2017 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge No. 16---3917 Appeal from the United States District Court for the JOSEF BOZEK and EVA BOZEK, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiffs---Appellants, Eastern Division. v. No. 16 C 31
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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 13, 2017* Decided April 14, 2017 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge No. 16---3917 Appeal from the United States District Court for the JOSEF BOZEK and EVA BOZEK, Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiffs---Appellants, Eastern Division. v. No. 16 C 310..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 13, 2017*
Decided April 14, 2017
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
No. 16-‐‑3917 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
JOSEF BOZEK and EVA BOZEK, Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiffs-‐‑Appellants,
Eastern Division.
v.
No. 16 C 3100
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.
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).
No. 16-‐‑3917 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
