Josef Bozek v. Bank of America, N.A.

NONPRECEDENTIAL  DISPOSITION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