Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

H & H Fast Properties Inc. v. Toorak Capital Partners, LLC

District Court, N.D. Illinois

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-06564

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (402)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

H & H Fast Properties Inc.,

Appellant/Debtor

No. 25 CV 6564

v.

Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins

Toorak Capital Partners, LLC,

Appellee.

              MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER                           
H&H Fast Properties (“H&H”) appeals a bankruptcy court order granting 

Toorak Capital Partners’ (“Toorak”) motion to enforce a settlement agreement. [Dkt.
1.]1 For the following reasons, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

I. Background

Prior to the underlying bankruptcy case here, Toorak initiated a mortgage
foreclosure action against an H&H principal in state court and in response, H&H
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023. Approximately a year later, H&H and
Toorak entered into a preliminary settlement agreement, and H&H submitted an
unexecuted copy of that agreement for the bankruptcy court’s approval through a
Fed. R. Bank. R. 9019 motion. After H&H withdrew that motion, however, Toorak
moved the bankruptcy court to enforce the settlement. On June 11, 2025, the
bankruptcy court entered an order enforcing settlement, requiring H&H to submit a
new Rule 9019 motion within 21 days. See In re H & H Fast Props. Inc., 2025 WL
1649540 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 11, 2025). H&H did not comply with that deadline
and instead appealed that order to this court. Meanwhile, Toorak filed a motion for a
rule to show cause and for sanctions against H&H for its failure to comply.

On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee moved the bankruptcy
court to either convert H&H’s bankruptcy case into a Chapter 7 action, or to dismiss
it. On January 21, 2026, H&H filed an amended Rule 9019 motion that complied with
the bankruptcy court’s earlier order to enforce settlement and the bankruptcy court
approved the fully executed settlement agreement. [Dkt. 21-1 at 48–79.] It then
granted the Trustee’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case in a written order that
also barred H&H from filing for bankruptcy relief under all chapters of the

1 Citations to docket filings generally refer to the electronic pagination provided by
CM/ECF, which may not be consistent with page numbers in the underlying documents.
Bankruptcy Code for two years under 11 U.S.C. § 349 (a). [See Dkt. 19-1; Dkt. 21-1 at
12–47; Dkt 23.]

II. Discussion

There is no doubt that jurisdiction is determined at the time the notice of
appeal is filed, something H&H observes in its brief. [Dkt. 20 at 3–4.] This
requirement for jurisdiction remains “throughout the pendency of an action, not just
at the time a case is filed.” Bd. of Educ. of Downers Grove Grade Sch. Dist. No. 58 v.
Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996). Generally, when a bankruptcy proceeding
is dismissed, all related proceedings are automatically dismissed. See, e.g., In re
Statistical Tabulating Corp., Inc., 60 F.3d 1286, 1289 (7th Cir. 1995). An appeal
becomes moot “when, because of an intervening event, the court cannot grant any
effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” Finch v. Treto, 82 F.4th 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2023). That is the case here.

The bankruptcy court has now approved a fully executed settlement agreement
between the parties and dismissed the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. [See Dkt. 21-1 at
12–89; Dkt. 23.] Specifically, on January 21, H&H signed the settlement agreement,
and the bankruptcy court dismissed the rule to show cause because the agreement in
issue has been signed. [Dkt. 21-1 at 75.] That set of events renders this appeal moot.

H&H resists this conclusion, but none of its arguments are persuasive. First,
H&H’s supplemental brief was filed before the bankruptcy court acted on January
21. [Dkt. 20.] H&H urged this court to issue a ruling on the appeal before the motions
pending before the bankruptcy court were set to be resolved on January 21. [Dkt. 20
at 7–8 (explaining that any dismissal order had not yet taken effect and urging this
court to issue a ruling before the January 21 hearing).] But now that the bankruptcy
court has approved the executed settlement agreement, dismissed the bankruptcy
case, and vacated the show cause request, this appeal is now moot.

Second, as Toorak observes, instead of signing the settlement agreement, H&H
could have continued to refuse to comply with the bankruptcy court’s order and
appealed any order issued in response to the motion to show cause for refusal to
comply. See In re Bullock, 986 F.3d 733, 734 (7th Cir. 2021) (affirming a dismissal for
mootness “because [appellant] complied with the very order … that he now seeks to
challenge and because his underlying bankruptcy case was dismissed”). Instead, it
complied with the bankruptcy court’s instructions and filed an executed settlement
agreement. “Debtor pursued none of these available litigation routes and cannot now
reverse course.” Id. at 737. The bankruptcy court’s dismissal order is now final. That
moots this appeal.

H&H argues that this court can still provide relief even “if the dismissal order
eventually becomes effective” because this court can “invalidate the legal basis for the
Rule to Show Cause proceedings,” something that would also impact the two-year
filing ban the bankruptcy court imposed on H&H. [Dkt. 20 at 7–8.] This argument is
a non-starter. H&H voluntarily agreed to the terms of the settlement by signing the
agreement and the motion to show cause was dismissed. [Dkt. 21-1 at 75.] There is
nothing for this court to reverse.
Nor is this court positioned to provide relief from the filing ban imposed by the
bankruptcy court. The case H&H cites in support, United States v. Buchman,
observed only that “the possibility of financial adjustments among the parties keeps
a proceeding alive even if the sale cannot be upset.” 646 F.3d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 2011).
Here, the filing ban was imposed by the bankruptcy court in an order that is not the
subject of H&H’s notice of appeal in this case. [Dkt. 1 at 2 (noticing the appeal to
bankruptcy court docket entries that granted the motion to enforce).] There is no
relief for this court to provide.
III. Conclusion
Because there remains no case or controversy on which relief could be granted,
the court dismisses H&H Fast Properties’ appeal.
Enter: 25-cv-6564
Date: February 13, 2026 __

                               Lindsay C. Jenkins