FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 96 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 02 64 -SDM- EAJ ESTATE O F KYLE TH OMAS BR ENNAN, by andth ro ug h i ts Adm in is tra to r, Vict or iaL. Brit to n, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,
ve rs us CHURCH OF SC IENTOLOGYFLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC., Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 7, 2 01 1)

Befo re HULL, BLACK andSTAPLETON, * C irc ui t Jud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ *Honora ble Walter K. Stapleton, United States Circuit J udg e for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.STAPLETON, Ci rcu itJu dg e:

The Ch ur chof S ci en to lo gy Flag Serv ic e Org an iz at io n, In c. (“ Sci en to lo gy”), ap pe al s fr om

th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s o rd er p erm an en tl y en joi ni ng a Fl or id a st at e co urt fro m san ct io ni ng co un se l fo r th e Est at e o f Ky le Tho m as Bren na n (“ th e Bre nn an Est at e”) f orhi s co nt in ue d re pr es en ta ti on of t he Bren na n Es ta te in th is m at te r, in vi ol at io n o f a s ta te co urt o rd er p ro hi bi ti ng th atrep res en ta ti on . This ap pe al requi res us to ex am in e th e li m it s i m po se d b y th e Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 83 , and , m or e sp eci fic al ly, to de ci de whet he r th e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on was

“ ne ces sa ry

in aidof [ th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s] juris di ct io n.” Id

. W e co nc lu de th atit
was no t, an d we wi ll th eref or e rev ers e an d v acat e th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s i nju nc ti on .

I. On Fe brua ry

13 , 20 09 , th e Bre nn anEst at e, rep res en te d b y Kenn anDand ar, Esq ., nam edSci en to lo gy as a d efen da ntin a wro ng fu l d eat h a ct io n fi le d i n t he Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (“ th e Bre nn an Acti on ”). The co m

pl ai ntall eg edth atth ree S ci en to lo gy m em be rs de pr iv edKy le Bren na n o f hi s p sychi atric m ed ic at io n, an d tha t “ whi le in a m en ta ll y de te rio rat ed st at e cau se d b y

th e ab ruptde ni al of h is pre sc rip ti on ,” he sh otan d k il le d h im se lf. Fo urte enm on th s l at er, o n Ap ril 12 , 20 10 , Dand ar fi le d a n “ In vo lu nt ary Mo ti on to W it hd raw as Co un se l” forth e Bre nn anEst at e, ex pl ai ni ng th athe ha d “ be en 2or de redto wit hdraw b y a st at e co urt ju dg e.” (Dkt. 7 4 a t 1 .) The m ot io n t o wit hd raw was de ni ed , andDand ar s ub se qu en tl y pe rs ua de d t he Dis tri ctCo urt t o
en joi n e nf or cem en t o f a s ta te co urt o rd er i m po si ng san ct io ns on Dand ar fo r fai li ng to wit hd raw fro m

th e Bre nn anActi on . This ap pe al fol lo wed
. The “ st at e co urt ju dg e” i s Se ni orJu dg e Ro be rt B each of t he Cir cu itCo urt fo r Pi ne ll as Co un ty, Fl or id a, who pre si de d o ve r an ot he r wro ng fu l d eat h a ct io n br ou gh t ag ai ns t Sc ie nt ol og y in 20 00 (“ th e Mc Ph ers on Acti on ”). The McPh ers on Acti on en de d i n aMay 200 4 s ettl em en t (“ th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t” ) th atals o
co ve redanact io n i n Tex as inwhi ch Dand ar was bo th co un se l an d ana m edpa rty
an d a dv ers ary of

Sci en to lo gy. Abo uta m on th aft er t he Bren na n Es ta te fil edit s fe de ral wron gf ul de ath act io n, Sc ie nt ol og y

fil eda m ot io n b efo re J ud ge Beac h t o e nf or ce a p ro vi si onof th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t wh ic h a ll eg ed ly pro hi bi te d Dan da r fro m pa rti ci pa ti ng in
an y way in an y adve rs ari al pro ceed in g a ga in stSci en to lo gy. Dan da r res po nd edby arg ui ng in hi s b rie fin g b efo re J ud ge Beac h (1 ) th atth e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t d id
no t fo recl os e h im

fro m rep res en ti ng th e Bre nn anEst at e in th e Bre nn anActi on ;
an d (2 ) th at , if i t d idha ve th ateffe ct , itwou ldbe un en fo rceabl e b ecau se itwas i n

3vi ol at io n o f Fl or id a BarRu le 4-5 .6(b ) an d p ub li c p ol ic y . Ju dg e Bea ch he ldth at 1 hi s co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on ov er t he pa rti es to th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t an d t he
subjec t m at te r, th atth e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t p ro hi bi te d Dan da r’s rep res en ta ti on of th e Bre nn anEst at e in th e Bre nn anActi on , andth atth is pro hi bi ti on was
en fo rceabl e. On Jun e 1 0, 2 00 9, h e o rd eredDand ar t o c eas e rep res en ta ti onof a ll pa rti es ot he r th anth e p la in ti ff i n t he McPh ers onActi on in all m atte rs ag ai ns t Sci en to lo gy. Dan da r ap pe al edth is ord er, an d F lo rid a’s Seco ndDis tri ctCo urt o f App eal affi rm ed pe r cu ri am an d wi th ou t an op in io n. Dan da r v. C hu rc h o f Sc ie nt ol og

y , 25 So . 3d12 33 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 20 09 ).

Florida Ba r Rule 4-5.6(b) provides: 1 A lawyer sha ll not participate in off eringor making : . . . (b) a n agree ment in which a r estriction on the lawyer’ s rig ht to practice is part of the se ttlement of a c lient controver sy . In 2004, the pre amble to the Rules of Profe ssional Conduct of the Flor ida B ar pr ovided: The fa ct that a r

ule is a just basis for a la

wyer’ s self-a ssessment, or for sa nctioning a

lawyer unde r the a dministration of a disciplinary authority , does not imply

that an anta g onist in a collatera l proce edingor transa ction has standingto seek e nforc ement of the rule. Ac cording ly , nothing in the r ules should be dee med to augment any

substantive leg al duty

of lawyers or

the extradisciplinary

conseque nces of

violating suc h duty
. See also Leev. De

p’t of Ins. , 586 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1991) (“ To use rule 4- 5.6 as the ba sis for invalidatinga private contra ctual provision is manifestly beyond the stated scope of the Rules and their intende d leg al ef fec t.”) 4Sci en to lo gy the n fi le d am ot io n b efo re J ud ge Beac h t o e nf or ce h is Ju ne 10 , 20 09 , ord er, an d Dan da r res po nd edby fili ng a m ot io n t o v oi d t he Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. OnFeb ru ary 19 , 20 10 , Ju dg e Bea ch de ni edDand ar’s m ot io n t o v oi d th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. OnApri l 1 2, 2 01 0, J ud ge Beac h (1 ) fo un d Dan da r in ci vi l co nt em

ptof h is ord er o f Ju ne 10 , 20 09 , andFeb ru ary 19 , 20 10 ; (2 ) or de red Dan dar to pa y

Sci en to lo gy dam ag es in th e am ou ntof $ 50 ,00 0; (3) di rect edDand ar to imm ed ia te ly file a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw in th e Bre nn anActi on ; an d (4 ) or de red th atif Dan dar fai le d t o wi th dr aw fro m th e Bre nn anActi on , a civ il pe na lt y of $1 ,00 0 p er d ay

wou ldaccrue ag ai ns t h im an d h is law fi rm . Dan da r imm ed ia te ly file d h is “ In vo lu nt ary Mo ti on to W ithd raw as Co un se l” in th e Bre nn anActi on , no ti ng as f ol lo ws: Pl ai nt iff ob jects to th is m ot io n a s ev id en cedin th e at ta ch edDecl arat io n b y

Pla in ti ff’s Admini st rat or , Vict or iaL. Brit to n, m ot he r of th e d eced en t. Bo th sh e an d [Da nd ar] hav e ex haus te d a ll effo rts to fin d s ub st itut e co un se l wi th ou t s uc ces s. The est at e m

us t b e rep res en te d b y

co un se l. Pl ai nt iff

is anin no cen t t hi rdpa rty who wi ll be sev erel y da m ag edby ha vi ng no ot he r at to rn ey

to tak e o ve r rep res en ta ti on in th is cas e. (Dkt. 7 4 a t 1 -2 .) On Ap ril 22 , 20 10 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt d en ie d t he m ot io n t o wit hd raw, n ot in g tha t (1 ) th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a’s Loc al Ru le 2.0 3( b)

5pr oh ib it s an att orne y fro m wit hdrawi ng fro m

a cas e wit ho utlea ve of c ou rt; (2) th e Bren na n Es ta te “ ve he m en tl y ob jects to Dand ar’s wit hd rawi ng fro m th e cas e,” be cau se it“ can no t fi ndsubs ti tu te co un se l; ” an d (3 ) “ [d ]esp it e th e st at e co urt’s
or de r[,] . . . Dand ar re m ai ns a m em be r in go odst an di ng of Th e Fl or id a Bar , Dan dar is ab le an d wi ll in g t o re pr es en t t he pl ai nt iff , andth e p art ie s i de nt ify nei th er
a co nf li ctof i nt eres t n or

an y othe r le ga ll y

co gn iz ab le ba rri er t o Dan da r’s co nt in ue d rep res en ta ti on in th is m at te r.” (Dkt. 7 7 a t 1 -2 .) The B ren na n Act io n t hu s pr oc eed edwit h Dan da r as co un se l fo r th e Bre nn anEst at e. On M ay 6, 2 01 0, h owe ve r, Ju dg e Bea ch di rect edDand ar t o app ear b efo re hi m to sh ow caus e why he s ho ul d n otbe he ldin cri m in al co nt em ptof t he ord ers of Ju ne 10 , 20 09 , andApri l 1 2, 2 01 0. In res po ns e, th e Bre nn anEst at e fi le d a n

“ Em erg en cy

Mo ti on forInju nc ti on ” in th e Bre nn anActi on reque st in g a n in jun ct io n a ga in stSci en to lo gy “ an d i f ne ces sa ry , th e St at e Ci rcu itCo urt t o pr oh ib itin te rfer en ce wi th th is Co urt’s o rd erl y pro gr es si on of thi s ca se .” (Dkt . 10 4 at1, 3 .) The Di stric t Co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, ru li ng as f ol lo ws: Bec au se Dand ar’s wit hd rawal requi res fed eral co urt ap pr ov al , a st at e co urt i nju nc ti onor o th er o rd er ag ai ns t Dan da r can no t co m

pe l h is wit hd rawal . A cou rt s ho ul d no t en te r anin

jun ct io n o r or de r th atcan no t b e en fo rced th ro ug h c oe rci ve co nt em

ptsan ct io ns .
* * * 6Non ethe le ss , th e st at e co urt en te redanord er p ur po rti ng to di rectDand ar t o wi th dr aw. Dand ar h as att em pt edto co m pl y wit h the st at e o rd er, b uthi s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw was de ni ed . The s ta te co urt can n ei th er co m m an d Dan da r’s wit hdrawal fro m th is act io n n orot he rwis e in te rfer e wit h the supe rv en in g fe de ral juri sd ic ti on . Bec au se no un la wfu l i nt erfe ren ce h as oc cu rred(an d rem ai ns un li ke ly giv enth e n atur e o f th e g ov ern in g l aw an d t he pro vi si on s o f Ru le 4-5 .6(b ), Ru le s R eg ul at in g The Flo rid a Bar , whi ch ha ve dra wn l it tl e co m m en t), Dan da r’s m ot io n i s DENIED. Com it y co m m an ds th e fed eral co urt’s n otass um in g t ha t a s ta te co urt wi ll en te r anun la wfu l o rd er o r in te rfer e wit h t he ord erl y ad m in is tra ti on of t he fed eral co urt. (Dkt. 1 08 at 2 (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) .) The fol lo win g d ay , ho wev er, J ud ge Beac h h el d ahe ari ng th atres ul te d i n fu rth er s an ct io ns forDand ar, an d, i n re sp on se , th e Bre nn anEst at e fi le d i ts

“ Seco ndEm erg en cy

Mo ti on forPerm an en t In jun ct io n andMo ti on for

San ct io ns .” The Dis tri ctCo urt h el d ahe ari ng on Sep te m be r 28 , 20 10 , andis su edanop in io n
an d o rd er t ha t s am e d ay

gra nt in g t he Bren na n Es ta te ’s reque st edin jun ct io n. The

2 Dis tri ctCo urt d et erm in edth atitha d “ no jus t an d re as on ab le op ti on ot he r th anto actin de fen se of [ it s] juri sd ic ti on ov er t he cas es an d c on tro ve rs ie s, p art ie s, an d The District Court issued an a mended injunction on Octobe r 12, 2010, in response to a motion 2 filed by J udg e B eac h to dissolve the injunction is sued on September 28, 2010. Scientology acknow ledg es that “the chang e in the ame nded ver sion [ of the injunction] is immaterial to the arguments” it sets forth her e. Appe llant’s Br . at 4. Nonethe less, the Octobe r 12, 2010, ame nded injunction is t he oper ative docume nt in this appea l, and so all ref ere nces a nd citations to the District Court’s injunction herein a re to the a mended injunction, and our dispositi on here is with respe ct to that document. 7la wy ers in th e d is tri ctco urt an d i n p ro te ct io n a ndpre se rv at io n o f th e st atus qu o

pe nd in g re so lu ti on of t he act io n s ub m it te d t o t he di stric t co urt fo r de te rm in at io n.” (Dkt. 1 73 at 2 6.) Thus , th e Dis tri ctCo urt, p ur su an t t o t he All Writ s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1( a), an d “ th e co urt’s i nh eren t p owe r to pre se rv e it s ju ris di ct io n,” gra nt edth e Bren na n Es ta te ’s in

jun ct io n m ot io n a ndis su edth e fo ll owi ng ord er: The de fen da ntSci en to lo gy; th e d efen da ntSci en to lo gy’ s co un se l i n t hi s ac ti on ; an d . . . an y ot he r pe rs on or e nt it y act in g i n c on certwit h S ci en to lo gy or Sci en to lo gy’ s co un se l i n t hi s ac ti on an d wi th actua l n ot ic e b y pe rs on al se rv ic e o r ot he rwis e o f th is ord er, wh ic h p ers on s i nc lu de st at e jud ge Ro be rt B each of P in el la s, Co un ty, Fl or id a, an d a ny oth er jud ge of t he Cir cu itCo urt fo r Pi ne ll as Co un ty, Fl or id a, orels ewh ere p res id in g i n Es ta te of Li sa McP he rs on v. Ch ur ch of S ci en to lo gy Flag Serv ic e Org an iz at io n, etal., Ca se No. 0 0- 00 56 82 CI-7 8; UNC: 52 20 00 CA0 05 68 2XXCI CI, PERMANENTLY ENJ OI NED fro m

lev y in g, as se ss in g, o r fu rth eri ng to an y ex te ntan y

lev y or a ss es sm en t o r an y

pe na lt y , cha rg e, da m ag e, fi ne , su sp en si on or r ev oc at io n o f an y rig ht , pr iv il eg e, orem ol um en t, o r th e li ke , in cl ud in g c on ve ni ng of a he ari ng or e nt ry

of a ny ord er o r jud gm en t, an y ex ecu ti onor i ns tru ct io n fo r le vy, any supp le m en ta l pr oc eed in g o r di sc ov ery in aidof e xe cu ti on , or o th er un de rta ki ng of asi m il ar n atur e, on acco un t o f Ken na n Dan da r’s rep res en ta ti on of t he pl ai nt iff in Est at e o

f Bren na n v . Chu rc h o

f S ci en to lo gy , 8: 09 -cv -2 64 -T23 EAJ, in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, orhi s fa il ur e to acco m pl is h wit hd rawal fro m

rep res en ta ti on in th e cas e, or on acco un t o f th e m an ne r an d m ean s o f hi s re pr es en ta ti onin th e cas e, in cl ud in g t he m an ne r an d m ean s o f hi s m ov in g to wit hd raw. 8(Dkt. 1 73 at 2 7- 28 .) Sci en to lo gy app eal edto th is Co urt.

Mea nwh il e, Dan da r ap pe al edJu dg e Bea ch ’s ord er o f Apr il 12 , 20 10 , arg ui ng in pa rt t ha t t he Cir cu itCo urt fo r Pi ne ll as Co un ty lack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er t he pro ceed in g t o e nf or ce t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t. The Seco nd Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal s “ rev ers e[d ] th e ci rcu itco urt’s o rd er t o t he ex te ntth atit award ed$5 0,0 00 inda m ag es ag ai ns t Dan dar an d i n fa vo r of [Sci en to lo gy] ,” bu t

“ affi rm [ed ] th e ci rcu itco urt’s o rd er i n a ll ot he r res pe ct s.” Dan da r v. C hu rc h o f Sc ie nt ol og

y , No. 2 D10 -2 19 4, 2 01 1 F la . App . LEXIS 15 57 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . Feb
. 11 , 20 11 ). On M ay 20 , 20 11 , Dand ar fi le d aPet it io n fo r Writof P ro hi bi ti on wit h t he Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt s eek in g a n o rd er “ di rect in g t he Seco ndDis tri ctto is su e an
or de r rec og ni zi ng th atth e ci rcu itco urt was wit ho utjuri sd ic ti on to en te r an y ord er
subs eque ntto th e joi ntvo lu nt ary di sm is sa l wi th pre jud ic e fi le d o n J un e 8 , 20 04 , an d e xc eed edit s ju ris di ct io n b y im po si ng a pr act ic e res tri ct io n a ndord ers of cri m in al co nt em

ptof c ou rt.” (Supp . App . 45 at 2 4.) Th atpe ti ti on rem ai ns pe nd in g. II.

9The Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a h adjuri sd ic ti on

pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2. We hav e juri sd ic ti onpu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 12 92 (a)( 1) , whi ch pro vi de s t ha t “ th e co urts of app eal s s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti onof ap pe al s fr om

. . . [i]nt erl oc ut ory

ord ers of t he di st ric t co urts of t he Uni te d S ta te s . . . gra nt in g . . . in

jun ct io ns .” W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to gra nta pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on foranab us e o f di sc ret io n. Co mmon Ca us e/ Geo rg ia v. Bil lu ps , 55 4 F .3d13 40 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ti ng eBa y In c. v. Mer cExch an ge , L.L.C. , 54 7 U.S. 3 88 , 39 1 (2 00 6) ). Howev er, “ [w]e revi ew th e u nd erl y in g fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r an d c on cl us io ns of l aw de no vo .” Id

. W he th er a di st ric t co urt h as th e au th or it y to en joi n ast at e co urt ac ti on un de r an ex cep ti on to th e Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act i s a que st io n o f la w th atwe rev ie w de no vo . Se e Tr an So uth Fi na nc ia l Co rp . v. Bell , 14 9 F .3d12 92 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). III. Sci en to lo gy con te nd s t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s en try of the pe rm an en t in jun ct io n v io la te d the Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act. We agre e. The Dis tri ctCo urt i ss ue d the in jun ct io n “ [p ]urs ua ntto th e All Writ s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 65 1( a)” ( Dkt . 17 3 a t 2 7) , and“ [i]nd eed , un le ss sp eci fic al ly con st rai ne d

10by an actof C on gr es s, t he [All Writ s] Act au th or iz es a co urt t o i ss ue writ s an y

ti m e, ‘the us e o f su chhi st or ic aid s i s ca lc ul at edin it s s ou ndjud gm en t t o a ch ie ve th e en ds of ju st ic e en tru st edto it .’ ” Bur r & Forman v. Bla ir , 47 0 F .3d10 19 , 10 26 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot in g Ada ms v. Un it ed St at es , 31 7 U.S. 2 69 , 27 3 (1 94 2) ). The Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, h owe ve r, “ se rv es as ach eckon th e b ro adau th or it y
reco gn iz edby the All Writ s Act ,” an d “ pr oh ib it s fe de ral co urts fro m ut il iz in g t ha t
au th or it y to st ay pro ceed in gs in st at e co urt u nl es s t he requi rem en ts of o ne of t hr ee
na rro w exc ep ti on s ar e m et .” Id

. at 1 02 7.

“ Und er t he Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, an in jun ct io n h al ti ng a st at e co urt
pr oc eed in g i s i napp ro pr ia te , ‘ ex cep t as ex pr es sl y au th or iz edby A ctof C on gr es s,
orwher e n eces sa ry

in aidof i ts juri sd ic ti on , or t o p ro te ctor e ffec tu at e it s jud gm en ts .’ ” Id

. (qu ot in g 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 83 ). W hi le th e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t
ex pl ic it ly referen ce t he Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, the Co urt en te redth e p erm an en t in jun ct io n p ur su an t t o i ts “ in he ren t p owe r to pre se rv e it s ju ris di ct io n a ndpre se rv e th e st atus qu o p en di ng li ti ga ti on .” (Dkt . 17 3 a t 2 7.) Th us , itap pe ars th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt i nv ok edth e Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act’s s eco ndex cep ti on . Howev er, 3 To the extent that the District Court’s opinion can be r ead to have invoked the Anti- 3 Injunction Act’s third exception, “whe re ne cessa ry . . . to protect or e ffe ctuate its judgments,” 28 U.S.C. § 2283, we note that the third exception “a uthorizes an injunction to prevent state litigation of a

claim or issue that pre viously was pre sented to and de cided by the fe dera l court.” Smith v. Baye r Corp. , 564 U.S. ___, ___ S. C t. ___, No. 09-1205, slip op. at 6 (U.S. J un. 16 2011) (quotation mar

ks omitt ed). It “is essentially a re s judicata c oncept de signe d to preve nt 11he re t he in

jun ct io n was no t “ ne ces sa ry in aidof [ th e Co urt’s] juris di ct io n.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 28 3.

“ Inli gh t o f th e fed eral is m co nc ern s u nd erl y in g [the ] Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act,

co urts co ns tru e . . . the ‘ ne ces sa ry in aidof i ts juri sd ic ti on ’ . . . excep ti on []
na rro wly. ” Bur r & Forman , 47 0 F .3dat 1 02 8 (c it in g T. Smi th &So n, In c. v. W il li ams , 27 5 F .2d39 7, 4 07 (5th C ir. 1 96 0) ; Delt a Ai r Li ne s, In c. v. McCo y Res ts ., In c. , 70 8 F .2d58 2, 5 85 (5t h C ir. 1 98 3) ). “ ‘[A] ny do ub ts as t o t he pro pr ie ty of a fed eral in jun ct io n a ga in stst at e co urt p ro ceed in gs sh ou ldbe res ol ve d i n fa vo r of pe rm it ti ng th e st at e co urts to pro ceed .’ ” Smi th v. Baye r C or p. , 56 4 U.S. _

__ , __

_ S. Ct . __ _, No . 09 -1 20 5, s li p o p. at6 (U.S. J un . 16 , 20 11 ) (quo ti ng Atl an ti c Co as t Li ne R. Co. v. Bhd. of

Lo co mot iv e Eng ’r

s , 39 8 U.S. 2 81 , 29 7, 9 0 S . Ct. 1 73 9, 1 74 9 (1 97 0) ). Thi s i s re fle ct edin ou r rev ie w of the rel ev an t ju ris prud en ce i n In Re Ford Mot or Co
. , 47 1 F .3d12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). For d Mo to r was acla ss act io n br ou gh t ag ai ns t Fo rdforall eg edbre ach es of i ts fran ch is e ag reem en ts in whi ch th e Dis tri ctCo urt h aden

joi ne d asi m il ar cl as s ac ti on bro ug htin anOhi o c ou rt. We th ere e xp la in ed : The Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act al lo ws a fe de ral co urt t o

en joi n ast at e co urt p ro ceed in g “ in aidof i ts issues that have a lrea dy

been tr ied in fede ral c ourt from be ing r elitigated in state cour t.” W esch v. Folsom , 6 F.3d 1465, 1471 ( 11th Cir. 1993). This is not t he ca se her e. 12juri sd ic ti on .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 28 3. In Atl an ti c Co as t Li ne , th e Supr em e Co urt em

ph as iz edth at ne ces si tyis requi red to in vo ke th is ex cep ti on ; “ itis no t en ou gh th atth e reque st edin

jun ct io n i s re la te d t o t ha t ju ris di ct io n.” Atl

. Co as t Li ne , 39 8 U.S. at29 5, 9 0 S . Ct. at17 47
. Ord in ari ly, a fed eral co urt m ay is su e an in

jun ct io n “ in ai d o f it s ju ris di ct io n” in on ly two ci rcu m st an ces : (1 ) th e di st ric t co urt h as ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er t he act io n be cau se itha d b een rem ov edfro m st at e co urt; or, (2 ) th e st at e co urt en te rta in s an in rem act io n i nv ol vi ng a res ov er wh ic h t he di stric t co urt h as be enex erci si ng juri sd ic ti on in an in rem act io n.

* * * Neit he r of

th es e sc en ari os is pre se ntin th e cas e at ha nd . Firs t, t he Baysho re Act io n d idno t co m e to th e di st ric t co urt v iarem ov al . Seco nd , th e Baysh or e Act io n is anact io n in pe rs on am , no t an act io n in rem . W e h av e ackno wled ge d ath irdsce na rio in whi ch th e en joi ni ng of ast at e co urt p ro ceed in g m ig htbe ne ces sa ry an d t hu s p erm is si bl e. Cal le d t he “ co m pl ex m ul ti -s ta te li ti ga ti on ” ex cep ti on , iten ab le s a d is tri ct co urt t o e njo ina st at e co urt p ro ceed in g i n a idof i ts juri sd ic ti on when itha s re ta in edjuri sd ic ti on ov er co m pl ex , in pe rs on am laws ui ts . In Bat tl e v. Li be rt y Na ti on al Lif e In su ra nc e Co
. , 87 7 F .2d87 7 (1 1th C ir. 19 89 ), we rev ie weda di stric t co urt o rd er en joi ni ng th e pl ai nt iff s i n t hr ee s ta te co urt p ro ceed in gs fro m pu rs ui ng cl ai m s t ha t wer e subs tant ia ll y si m il ar t o t ho se cla im s se tt le d b y fin al jud gm en t i n afed eral an ti tru stcla ss act io n l aws ui t.

* * * W e o bs erv edth at“ itm ak es sen se ” to co ns id er s o co m pl ic at eda cas e, inwhi ch bo th th e co urt an d t he
13pa rti es ha d i nv es te d c on si de rab le ti m e an d re so ur ces , li ke a “ re s to be adm in is te red .” Id

. at 8 82
. W e rea ch edth e sa m e co nc lu si on in W es ch , a cas e in vo lv in g a n Al ab am a co ng res si on al red is tri ct in g p la n ad m in is te redby a thr ee-ju dg e co urt.

* * * The ex cep ti on reco gn iz edin W es ch an d Bat tl e is pr ed ic at edonbo th co m

pl ex it y an d p ot en ti al for in te rfer en ce. The si tu at io n b efo re u s b ears li tt le factua l si m il ari ty to t ho se cas es . W e d o n otha ve be fo re u s a cl as s ac ti on affe ct in g t he rig ht s o f hu nd red s (o r ev en do zen s) of p art ie s, n orare we co nf ro nt edwit h aco m

pl ex an d c aref ul ly crafte d s et tl em en t o r ot he r pl anwhi ch wou ldbe un de rm in edby a sta te co urt ad jud ic at io n. Th e li ti ga ti on inth e Ohi o c ou rt, o n i ts own , wou ldno t di sp la ce o r fru st rat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s m an ag em en t o f th e cas e n ow p en di ng be fo re i t. As c om pa redto Bat tl e an d W es ch , th e d iff

ic ul ti es in vo lv edin res ol vi ng th e Baysho re Act io n are d iff

eren t i n k in d a ndsm al le r in m ag ni tu de . Thu s, t he sec on d e xc ep ti on to th e Ant iIn jun ct io n Actdo es no t ap pl y . Id

. at 1 25 0- 53 (em

ph as is in ori gi na l; foo tn ot e o m it te d)
. Here, as in Ford Mo to r , th e Bre nn anActi on ha d n otbe enrem ov edfro m th e st at e co urt an d was no t an in rem act io n. No r can th e Bre nn anActi on be ch arac te riz edas c om

pl ex or a s h av in g the po te nt ia l fo r th e k in d o f in te rfer en ce whi chth e Co urt fo un d i n Bat tl ean d W es ch . It co ul d h ard ly be an al og iz edto an in
re m pro ceed in g. Th ere was a si ng le pl ai nt iff who so ug htto li ti ga te a to rt c la im th atwas wh ol ly unr el at edto th e subjec t m at te r of th e en joi ne d s ta te pro ceed in g.
14The li m it edpu rp os e o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s i nju nc ti on was t o e ns ur e th ata

pa rti cu la r at to rn ey

rem ai ne d a s co un se l fo r a p art y be fo re i t. As we no te d i n Bur r & Forman , 47 0 F .3dat 1 02 9, the “ co m pl ex li ti ga ti on ” sc en ari os reco gn iz edin Bat tl ean d W

es ch “ rep res en t t he ou te rm os t l im it s o f th e ex cep ti on ” to th e ru le ag ai ns t en joi ni ng in pe rs on am cas es in a st at e co urt. Lik e th e si tu at io n b efo re t he Co urt i n For d Mo to r , th e si tu at io n b efo re t he Dis tri ctCo urt h ere was far b ey on d th os e “ ou te rm os t l im it s.” W e h av e b een refe rredto , andha ve fou nd , no cas e su gg es ti ng th ata di st ric t
co urt, co ns is te ntwit h t he Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act, m ay en joi n ast at e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in g i n o rd er t o e ns ur e th ata pa rti cu la r atto rn ey wil l re pr es en t a p art y be fo re i t. Co nt rary to t he su gg es ti on of t he Bren na n Es ta te , Su rr ic k v. Ki ll io n , 44 9 F.3 d 5 20 (3dCir . 20 06 ), do es no t s up po rt s uc h apro po si ti on . Su rr ic k was a de cl arat ory

jud gm en t ac ti on inwhi ch th e Co urt h el d t ha t anatt orne y su sp en de d fro m th e Pen ns y lv an iaBar m ay “ op ena le ga l o ffi ce [i n P en ns y lv an ia ] fo r th e pr act ic e o f la w bef

or e th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ct ” o f Pen ns y lv an ia , des pi te a Pen ns y lv an iaOffic e o f Dis ci pl in ary Co un se l ru le st at in g th at“ anatt orne y

su sp en de d fr om

pra ct ic e inth e Pen ns y lv an iaco urts bu t read m it te d t o t he fed eral di stric t co urt co ul d n otm ai nt ai n alaw o ffi ce i n t he Co m m on weal th so lo ng as h e rem ai ns un au th or iz edto pra ct ic e in th e Pen ns y lv an ia
15st at e co urts .” Id

. at 5 24
. Su rr ic k was apre em

pt io n c as e d eci de d u nd er t he Supr em acy Clau se of t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n. Itin vo lv eda st rai gh tfo rward ap pl ic at io n o f th e h ol di ng of Sp erryv. Flo ri da , 37 3 U.S. 3 79 (19 63 ), th at“ [n ]o St at e la w canhi nd er o r ob st ru ctth e free us e o f a l ic en se gra nt edun de r an actof Co ng res s,” id

. at 3 85 (ci ta ti on om it te d) , nam el y th e li cen se to pra ct ic e b efo re t he fed eral co urt. Here , th e o nl y ap pl ic ab le st at e la w is Flo rid a’s la w of c on tra ct s, whi chdo es no t co nf

li ctwit h t he pri vi le ge of p ract ic in g b efo re t he fed eral co urts . Dan dar’s pr iv il eg e to pra ct ic e in fed eral co urt i n p art ic ul ar ca se s was vo lu nt ari ly
su rren de redby him

in return fo r co ns id erat io n; itwas n ottak enfro m hi m by a st at e la w th atst oo d “ as anob st acl e to th e acc om pl is hm en t o f th e fu ll pu rp os es an d ob jecti ve s o f [the ] fed eral law” pe rm it ti ng hi m to pra ct ic e in th e fed eral co urts . Su rr ic k, 44 9 F .3dat 5 32 (qu ot in g Si lk wo od v. Ker r-McGee C

or p. , 46 4 U.S. 2 38 , 24 8 (1 98 4) ). Furth er, s in ce Su rr ic k in vo lv edno in

jun ct io n o f a s ta te co urt pr oc eed in g, t he Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act was , of c ou rs e, no t ap pl ic ab le
. Cas e la w fro m

ou r si st er Co urts of Ap pe al s s up po rts th e co nc lu si onwe

reac h b as edon Ford Mo to r . In Reti re men t S ys te ms o f Alab ama v. J.P. Mor

ga n Ch as e & Co
. , 38 6 F .3d41 9 (2 d C ir. 2 00 4) , nu m ero us fed eral cla ss act io ns ari si ng
ou t o f W or ld Co m

Inc .’ s b an krup tc y

were co ns ol id at edin th e Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ne w York , anda tr ia l d at e was set . Id

. at 4 21 -2 2. 16Mea nwh il e, an ot he r act io n a ris in g o utof t he W or ld Co m ba nkrupt cy

was fi le d i n st at e co urt i n Al ab am a, an d atri al da te was s etth ree m on th s b efo re t he fed eral tri al da te . Id

. at 4 22 -2 3. Th e d efen da nt s i n t he fed eral act io n m ov edto st ay th e st at e tri al un ti l af

te r th e fed eral on e. The Di st ric t Co urt g ran te d the in jun ct io n, ru li ng th atitwas n eces sa ry

in aidof i ts juri sd ic ti on be cau se itwas “ ne ces sary to pre se rv e th e sc he du le
. . . an d t o k eep th e fed eral MDL li ti ga ti on on it s o wn ‘path t o jud gm en t.’” In re Wor ld Co m, Inc . Sec . Lit ig
. , 31 5 F . Sup p. 2 d 5 27 , 54 7 (S .D.N.Y. 20 04 ). The C ou rt o f App eal s fo r th e Sec on d C irc ui t re ve rs ed , ho ld in g t ha t t he

“ ne ces sa ry

in aidof i ts juri sd ic ti on ” ex cep ti on“ do es no t p erm ita di st ric t co urt –
ev ena di st ric t co urt m an ag in g c om pl ex , m ul ti di st ric t l it ig at io n s uc h a s t he W or ld Co m

sec ur it ie s l it ig at io n –to en joi n s ta te co urt p ro ceed in gs si m pl y to pr es erv e it s t ria l d at e.” Reti re men t S ys . , 38 6 F .3dat 4 21
. Se e a ls o N egre te v. All ia nzLif

e In s. Co
. , 52 3 F .3d10 91 , 11 01 -0 2 (9 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ [T]he m ere f act th atth e act io ns of ast at e co urt m ig htha ve so m e eff ecton th e fed eral pro ceed in gs do es no t ju st ify int erfe ren ce.”)
. The Di stric t Co urt’s co nc ern ab ou t t he ab il it y of t he Bren na n Es ta te to

se cu re o th er co un se l was cert ai nl y un de rs ta nd ab le an d c omm en dabl e. It was
en ti tl edto do ev erythi ng itco ul d t o fa ci li ta te th e Bre nn anEst at e’s se arch for al te rn at iv e co un se l, s tarti ng wit h ast ay of t he pro ceed in gs su ffi ci en t t o p erm itan 17or de rly andth or ou gh can va ss of a ll av ai labl e so ur ces of r ep res en ta ti on . The 4 Co urt was no t re sp on si bl e fo r se cu rin g re pr es en ta ti on forth e p art ie s b efo re i t, ho wev er, an d i ts juri sd ic ti on to ad jud ic at e th e cl ai m

of t he Bren na n Es ta te was n ot de pe nd en t o n i ts do in g s o. Fi na ll y , “ th e m ere f

actth ata st at e co urt m ay

reac h aco nc lu si onth atdi ffer s fro m whata fed eral co urt wo ul d p refe r do es no t ch an ge th e res ul t.” Negre te , 52 3 F.3 d a t 1 10 2. In it s o pi ni on , th e Dis tri ctCo urt l is te d n in e st at e la w is su es th at
co nc ern edit . It d ecl in edto ad dr es s t he m , ho wev er, ex pl ai ni ng :

Oth er i ss ue s ab ou nd , bu t co rrec ti ng anerro r, ev ena m an ife stan d p al pabl e err or , by th e st at e ci rcu itco urt ex ceed s t he us ua l b ou nd s o f th e d is tri ctco urt. (Th e pr op rie ty or effe ct iv en es s o f th e act io ns of ano th er co urt are s us cep ti bl e to rev ie w on ly in p ro pe r an d d efi ne d ci rcu m st an ces , for

ex am pl e, if a pa rty seek s t o e nf

or ce a “ vo id ” jud gm en t o r a fo rei gn jud gm en t t ha t o ffen ds an im po rtantpubl ic po li cy

of t he forum

co urt an d fa il s t o warra nt“ fu ll fai th an d c red it .”) Inth e p res en t

Danda r advised the Court in his m otion and at ora l arg ument that he had unsuc cessf ully 4 soug ht alterna

tive counsel. He also filed a “ Dec laration” of the Administratrix of the Br ennan Estate indicatingthat she had “ talked to many lawyers in diffe rent states a nd eac h one turne d me down as soon as the y

hear d it involved the Church of Scientology .” (D kt. 74 at 5.) No evidentiar y hearing took plac e, howe ver, a nd neither D andar

nor the Administratrix provided any acc ount of wher e and how they had solicited alter

native re prese ntation. Indeed, the administratrix , in her subseque nt deposition, denied that she had c ontacted a nyone other

than Danda r “since the filingof the wr ong ful death action for pur poses of represe nting the e state.” (Dkt. 129 at 69.) It is thus far from c lear on the cur

rent re cord that alternative repr esenta tion would not be ava ilable if and when the e x isting controve rsies ar e re solved and Da ndar ha s elec ted to withdraw. 18ci rcu m st an ce, the foc us of t he di st ric t co urt i s m uc h m or e na rro w andsp eci fic
. (Dkt. 1 73 at 2 1- 22 .) Thi s v ie w is , of c ou rs e, co rrec t t o t he ex te ntitrefl ect s an ackno wled gm en t b y

th e Dis tri ctCo urt t ha t i t h adno juri sd ic ti onto rev ie w th e
ru li ng s o f th e st at e co urts in co nn ect io n wi th en fo rcem en t o f th e Set tl em en t Agr eem en t. Tha t ju ris di ct io n i s re se rv edto th e ap pe ll at e co urts of F lo rid a an d t he Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. Roo ker v. Fid el it y Tr us t Co
. , 26 3 U.S. 4 13 , 41 6 (1 92 3) ; D.C. Co ur t o f Ap pe al s v. Feldma n , 46 0 U.S. 4 62 , 47 6 (1 98 3)
. 5 The Dis tri ctCo urt g oe s o n, h owe ve r, to att rib ut e “ th e p res en t ju ris di ct io na l fri ct io n” to Ju dg e Bea ch ’s fai lu re t o fo ll ow a c le arl y est ab li sh edrul e th at“ a jud ge sh ou ldno t u nd ert ak e, di rect ly or in di rect ly, ov ert ly or th ro ug h asu rro ga te , to

Indeed, w e and the District Court are require d to give Judg e B eac h’s ruling s and orde rs the 5 same e ffe ct they

would be g iven by

the cour ts of Florida

– i.e. , to give them full faith and c redit. 28 U.S.C. § 1738. I t follows that we ar e re quired to ac cept that Da ndar voluntarily

committed himself contra ctually

not to repre sent parties litig atingag ainst Scientology and that that commitment is l eg ally

enfor cea ble under state law. A ccor dingly , the District Court err ed whe n, despite Judge B eac h’s orde rs of June 10, 2009, and April 12, 2010, it conclude d that there was “no . . . leg ally

cognizable barrie r to Danda r’s c ontinued repr esentation” in the Br ennan A ction. (Dkt. 77 at 2.) T he B renna n Estate questions whethe r Judge B eac h’s cour t had jurisdiction to issue its orders, but while “f eder al cour

ts may inquire into the jurisdictional basis of a judgment befor e ac cording

the judgment full faith and c redit[,] . . . [t ]hat inqui ry is . . . constrained by principles of res judicata ,” such that “a judgment is entitled to full faith and cre dit – even as to questions of jurisdiction – when the sec ond court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been f ully and fa irly

litigated a

nd finally decide d in the court whic h rende red the orig inal judgme nt.” Am. Stee l Bldg. Co. v. Davidson &Richardson Constr. C o. , 847 F.2d 1519, 1521 (11th Cir. 1988) (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). Her e, it is undisputed that the jurisdictional issue was litigated in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County and in Flor ida’s Second District Court of Appea l, and so we ma y not rea ch the que stion of whether the state c ourt had jurisdiction to enter its orders. 19co m

pe l an actby ano th er jud ge , esp eci al ly in a d iff eren t ju ris di ct io n. (Th e n atur e of th e jud ic ia l p owe r pe rm it s a ju dg e to ord er o nl y th atwhi ch th e jud ge can
acco m pl is h t hr ou gh th e su nd ry

po wers of t he off

ic e.)” ( Id . at 2 4.) Inth e Dis tri ct Co urt’s v ie w, th e fai lu re t o fo ll ow t hi s ru le ha d re su lt edina gr av e in jus ti ce – Ju dg e Bea ch ’s im

po si ti on of c on te m

ptsan ct io ns on Dand ar fo r fai lu re t o wi th dr aw fro m th e fed eral rep res en ta ti onwhen he ha d n o p owe r to do so fol lo win g t he de ni al of h is m ot io n t o wi th dr aw. The Di st ric t Co urt b el ie ve s t ha t t hi s i nju st ic e
an d t he “pr es en t ju ris di ct io na l fr ic ti on ” co ul d h av e b een av oi de d i f Ju dg e Bea ch ha d o rd eredSci en to lo gy to a skth e Dis tri ctCo urt t o d is qu al ify Dand ar i n the cas e be fo re i t. On ce ag ai n, we u nd ers ta ndth e Dis tri ctCo urt’s co nc ern s an d ackno wled ge th atit s co nc ern s ar e le gi ti m at e o ne s. Th e Co urt fa il s t o e xp la in , ho wev er, h ow t he is su es pre se nt edby the se cri ti qu es are d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th e 6 ot he r is su es itackno wled ge s ar e p ro pe rly pres se d o nl y up on th e st at e jud ic ia ry

th at is au th or iz edto rev ie w Ju dg e Bea ch ’s ord ers . W e d o n otfin d the m di st in gu is habl e an d c on si de r itcle ar u nd er o urAnt i-I nju nc ti on Act ca se law tha t a di st ric t co urt co nv ic ti on th ata st at e p ro ceed in g h as reac he d o r is reac hi ng an
erro ne ou s re su ltdo es no t al on e warra ntanin jun ct io n a ga in stth os e p ro ceed in gs . 6

Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt’s injunction violates the Anti-Injunction Act, we 6 need not r eac h the merits of Scientology ’s ar gument that the injunction also violates the abstention doctrine in Y

ounger v. H

arris , 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. C t. 746 (1971), or its ar gument that

20IV.

W e co nc lu de th atth e p erm an en t i nju nc ti on en te redby the Dis tri ctCo urt

was no t “ ne ces sa ry

inaidof i ts juri sd ic ti on ,” 28 U.S.C. § 2 28 3, an d, ac co rd in gl y , was is su edin vi ol at io n o f th e Ant i-I nju nc ti on Act. We will rev ers e an d v acat e th e in jun ct io n. REVERSED an d VACATED.

the per manent injunction is not properly supported by

the evidenc e. 21