with the legitimate activities of the States .... [T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in a state court is not to issue such injunctions. Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45, 91 S.Ct. 746. Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that “[a]ny doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy.” Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281, 297, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970). In the case at bar, the state court has not purported to assert jurisdiction over the claims against State Farm in either Moore I or Moore II. Cf. Meyerland Co., 910 F.2d at 1263 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the court is mindful of the deference
holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding holding the antiinjunction act  does not bar an injunction of a state court proceeding which purports to exercise jurisdiction over a removed case holding that the statutory bar set by the antiinjunction act cannot be avoiding by directing the injunction solely to a party as distinguished from the state court holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act