context the plaintiff’s presence Li state court is compelled and involuntary. Id. at 418, 84 S.Ct. at 466. In contrast, the Court noted, “if a party freely and without reservation submits his federal claims for decision by the state courts, litigates them there, and has them decided there, then ... he has elected to forgo his right to return to the District Court.” Id. at 419, 84 S.Ct. at 466. Our precedent demonstrates the continued vitality of the rule enunciated in England. See, e.g., Kovats v. Rutgers, 749 F.2d 1041 (3d Cir.1984) (finding valid England reservation); New Jersey Educ. Ass’n v. Burke, 579 F.2d 764, 772-74 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 894, 99 S.Ct. 252, 58 L.Ed.2d 239 (1978) (same); see also Peduto v. City of North Wildwood, 878 F.2d 725, 729 n. 5 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Defendants contend England does not apply
holding that because the plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of the state court in the first instance the application of england has no relevance here holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property holding that this court has discretion to either address or remand arguments presented to it in the first instance provided it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim holding that this court has discretion to hear arguments presented to it in the first instance provided that it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim holding that because parties elected to bring the case to the appellate court in the first instance the appeal could not then be dismissed just to confer jurisdiction upon the district court to determine the issues