of federalism are affected differently when a court enjoins a litigant from filing prospective state court actions as opposed to making filings in existing state court actions. The state court is absent from the former scenario, but in the latter scenario, the practical effect of enjoining a litigant is to halt existing state court proceedings. Comity requires the state court to make those decisions, and therefore this court must defer to the state court’s ability to handle its cases. The result would be different if there was evidence that the state court violated 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). The cases cited by State Farm all involve federal courts enjoining state courts, or litigants, after the state court took some sort of prohibited action. See Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 243, 92 S.Ct. 2151 (<HOLDING>); Harris County, Tex. v. CarMax Auto
holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings because claims for rescission under tila can be brought in state court including as a defense to an eviction claim in housing court holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act holding federal court was not precluded by antiinjunction act from enjoining florida state court after state court entered a preliminary order holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the suffolk county district court fifth district because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs claims under the real estate settlement procedures act holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court