between state and federal governments, is dependent on just this sort of deference. To hold otherwise would result in needless friction between the state and federal courts. At oral argument, counsel for State Farm stressed that an alternative to enjoining the state court would be to enter an order enjoining Plaintiffs’ counsel from continuing to file motions relating to the claims against State Farm in Moore I and Moore II. The Anti-Injunction Act “does not preclude injunctions against a lawyer’s filing of prospective state court actions.” Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir.2002). In this case, however, State Farm seeks an injunction against Plaintiffs’ counsel from making additional filings in already-filed state actions. The pri Inc., 177 F.3d 306 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Meyerland Co., 910 F.2d at 1263 (describing
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 the injunction did not constitute a claim holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act holding the antiinjunction act  does not bar an injunction of a state court proceeding which purports to exercise jurisdiction over a removed case