We conclude that Seider’s claims for injunctive relief and mandamus are moot because Knox County held an election for the office of sheriff on August 7, 2008. With respect to the remaining damages claims, the district court should not have dismissed the case. “[T]he power to dismiss under the Burford doctrine ... derives from the discretion historically enjoyed by courts of equity.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 727-28, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). “While federal courts may stay actions for damages based on abstention principles, we have not held that those principles support the outright dismissal or remand of damages actions.” Id. at 721, 116 S.Ct. 1712; see also Superior Beverage Co., Inc. v. Schieffelin & Co., 448 F.3d 910, 913-14 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The district court therefore should not have
holding that claims under the vrra are equitable and a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial holding that under quackenbush abstention is not appropriate in cases with both equitable and damages claims holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that plaintiff could recover both doubled damages under the state regulation of manufacturers distributors and dealers act and punitive damages in connection with the common law claim because the act expressly allows both types of damages