costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.” In the instant case, plaintiffs “demand judgment against the defendants for three times their damages and for their costs, including attorney’s fees, and further pray for such other and further relief, including injunctive relief and cancellation of instruments, as may be needed, both during and at the conclusion of this case, to afford complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Although the plaintiffs in the instant case specifically request “three times their damages” and “injunctive relief,” both of those remedies are expressly provided under the RICO statute and are not exclusively available in federal court. See Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 460-61, 110 S.Ct. 792, 795-96, 107 L.Ed.2d 887 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, had the RICO claim been part of
holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive