federal claims in the ongoing state proceeding for the purposes of meeting the second exception of the Anti-Injunction Act. In Caulder v. Durham Housing Authority, 433 F.2d 998 (4th Cir.1970), the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction of a state court eviction proceeding where it seemed that “plaintiffs right, if any, to litigate the issues in a state court appearfed] more theoretical than real”. Id. at 1002. Similarly, to establish the inadequacy of state remedies for the purposes of avoiding Younger abstention, the Plaintiffs must “show[] that the State’s laws, procedures, or practices would prevent [their] effective interposition of [their] federal contentions”. Kirschner, 225 F.3d at 235; see also Spargo v. New York State Com’n on Judicial Conduct, 351 F.3d 65, 78 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). As set forth below, the Court finds that: (1)
holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that because the federal plaintiffs claims were essentially derivative of the state defendants younger abstention applied holding that to avoid younger abstention plaintiffs must demonstrate that state law bars the effective consideration of their federal claims holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional holding that younger abstention was appropriate while the case works its way through the state appellate process