United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
CHRISTINE E. MARFUT, Plaintiff,
THE GARDENS OF GULF COVE POA, INC, JOHN ANDERSON, BREEN LUCILLE, JACK ARLINGHAUS, DAHL HERMAN, FRED STREIF, NAMY THOMPSON PL, STEPHEN W. THOMPSON, JOSEPH NAJMY, LOUIS NAJMY, RICHARD WELLER, RANDOLF L. SMITH and MICHAEL J. SMITH, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Christine
E. Marfut's Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief.
(Doc. 27). For the following reasons, the Court denies her
years ago, Defendant Gardens of Gulf Cove Property
Owner's Association, Inc. filed a complaint for lien
foreclosure against Marfut in county court. (Doc. 25-1).
Gardens of Gulf Cove did so because Marfut allegedly did not
pay her homeowners' association assessments. (Doc. 25 at
1-2). Marfut moved to transfer the case to the circuit court,
arguing the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional
maximum for county court. When the court denied her motion
last month, she appealed. And the appeal is still pending.
addition to the appeal, Marfut filed this federal suit
against Defendants. She alleges they have violated the mail
fraud, wire fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy
federal statutes. (Doc. 1). She also requests injunctive
relief from the foreclosure action. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶
64-67). She specifically wants the Court to stay the
foreclosure trial because the county court “does not
have subject matter jurisdiction to try a case which involves
title to and possession of real property.” (Doc. 13 at
¶ 66). According to Marfut, her constitutional rights
have been violated because the county court has neither
dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
nor sent the case to the circuit court. (Doc. 1 at ¶
67). Because the county court case still “has not been
removed from the docket, ” Marfut files this emergency
motion asking the Court to stay the case. (Doc. 27 at 2).
Court has no authority to grant Marfut such relief. Under the
Anti-Injunction Act, a federal district court “may not
grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court
except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where
necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283.
“The . . . ‘necessary in aid of its jurisdiction
exception  applies in two narrow circumstances: (1) the
federal court gains jurisdiction over res in an in rem
proceeding a party brings a subsequent state court action; or
(2) the federal court is presented with a similar context,
” e.g., the need to protect an earlier-issued
injunction. See Arthur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA,
569 F. App'x 669, 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted). The third exception “is applicable where
subsequent state law claims ‘would be precluded by the
doctrine of res judicata' . . . In addition to the
existence of a federal judgment, ‘the party seeking the
injunction must make a strong and unequivocal showing of
relitigation.'” Id. at 678-79 (citations
Marfut's motion requesting the Court to stay the county
court trial falls squarely under the Anti-Injunction Act. And
there is no applicable exception to grant Marfut the relief
she requests. Regardless of how liberally the Court construes
her motion, it lacks any authority to direct the county court
to stay the upcoming trial. See, e.g., Reed v. U.S. Bank
Natl Assoc, No. 8:17-cv-1051-T-33AEP, 2017 WL 1906297,
at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2017) (denying plaintiff's
request for a temporary restraining order to stop her
eviction under the Anti-Injunction Act); Dyer v. The Bank
of N.Y. Mellon, No. 5:17-cv-130-Oc-30PRL, 2017 WL
1165552, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2017) (same). Whether the
county court has jurisdiction to handle the foreclosure
action is a matter for the state courts to decide.
it is now
Christine E. Marfut's Request for Emergency Injunctive
Relief. (Doc. 27) is DENIED.
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other
site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
 Although the Court denies Marfut's
Request for Emergency Injunction Relief, the case remains
open as to her ...