Barry E. Mukamal v. Raziel Ofer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-13048
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13048 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13048 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BARRY E. MUKAMAL, solely in his capacity as Plan Administrator of the 942 Penn RR, LLC Post-confirmation Bankruptcy Estate, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAZIEL OFER,

Defendant-Cross Claimant-Appellant,

RAFAEL ROBERTO MENDEZ, et al., USCA11 Case: 24-13048 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13048

Cross Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-22803-BB ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In May 2022, 942 Penn RR, LLC , a company in which Raziel Ofer and Robert Mendez each held 50% interests, filed for bank- ruptcy. Barry E. Mukamal was appointed as the trustee. In 2024, pursuant to the bankruptcy court’s order, Mukamal filed an inter- pleader action in state court to resolve several parties’ claims to ex- cess funds in the bankruptcy estate. Ofer, proceeding pro se, removed the interpleader action to the district court. The district court remanded the action on Au- gust 23, 2024. Ofer appealed. A jurisdictional question asked the parties to address whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars review of that order. In their re- sponse, the charging order parties brought to our attention that Mendez has removed the interpleader action again. The district court has stayed the action pending this appeal. USCA11 Case: 24-13048 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13048 Opinion of the Court 3

Our jurisdiction is limited to “cases” and “controversies,” which requires, inter alia, that the issue or issues not be moot. Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). “An issue is moot when it no longer presents a live con- troversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful re- lief.” Zinni v. ER Solutions, Inc., 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). This appeal is moot. Because Mendez has removed the in- terpleader action back to the district court, we can no longer grant Ofer effective relief from the August 23 remand order. See id.; Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that an appeal can become moot via intervening events). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.