is in deference to the fundamental principles of federalism, which represents a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly t owes state court judges, and it has no reason to believe that § 1446(d) will not be applied appropriately in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. Our system of federalism, rooted in the principles of injunction as one against an on-going state appeal); Maseda, 861 F.2d at 1255 (affirming an injunction against a state court from enforcing its judgment); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 659 F.2d at 1334-35 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, another basis for denying the
holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order holding temporary restraining order void because court waived bond holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it holding temporary restraining order void for lack of requirement of separate bond