Document: 449 U.S. 54 101 S.Ct. 289 66 L.Ed.2d 258 COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA, et al., Petitioners,v.Guillermo Gallego MUNOZ al. No. 79-1003. Argued Oct. 15, 1980. Decided Dec. 2, Syllabus Petitioner county obtained an injunction in a California state court prohibiting the owner of tract land from selling water well on premises for use outside violation conditional permit required by zoning ordinance and allowing sale only within county. The Supreme Court affirmed, this dismissed owner's appeal. Meanwhile, respondents, merchants involved to Mexico, brought suit Federal District California, challenging ground that it violated Commerce Clause, secured preliminary restraining petitioner enforcing permit. rejected county's argument Anti-Injunction Act---which prohibits federal granting "to stay proceedings State court" except as expressly authorized Act Congress, or where necessary aid its jurisdiction, protect effectuate judgments---operated prohibit so enjoining United States Appeals holding trial had terminated, injunction, therefore, did not violate rule cannot be evaded addressing parties rather than court, that, moreover, under Hale v. Bimco Trading, Inc., 306 375, 59 526, 83 L.Ed. 771, third were barred statute constitutional grounds when was also litigation courts. Held : erred finding inapplicable Pp. 58-60. (a) Appeals' view after has entered are concluded purposes is contrary Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Locomotive Engineers, 398 281, 90 1739, 26 234, although against certain party's giving effect state-court directed at party nevertheless one meaning Act. 58-59. (b) supra, does govern case, neither nor addressed question whether respondents "strangers proceeding" who bound though they such proceeding. Unless "strangers," 59-60. 9 Cir., 604 F.2d 1174, vacated remanded. James H. Harmon, El Centro, Cal., petitioners. William Kronberger, Jr., San Diego, respondents. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, provides: 2 "A may grant judgments." 3 This case presents issues respecting scope 4 * In 1972, Donald C. McDougal bought W. Erle Simpson Imperial County, Cal. Although residential subdivision, allowed tract's develop natural resources if he could obtain conditional-use With land, acquired permit, which him sell condition sold never challenged condition, ever much his well. Like Simpson, challenge but good deal water, some McDougal's neighbors grew irritated many trucks carrying premises, complained sought vindicate asking Superior injunctive declaratory relief would consumption 5 enjoined "conducting trucking operation similar occurred commencing about June 30, 1972."1 On appeal Court, argued permit's geographic restriction invalid. appellate declined reach argument, since "a landowner successor title imposed upon special acquiesced therein either specifically agreeing failing validity, accepted benefits afforded permit." County McDougal, 19 Cal.3d 505, 510-511, 138 Cal.Rptr. 472, 476, 564 P.2d 14, 18. thus affirmed Court's decision ordinance, reversed frequent truck traffic ordinance. appealed judgment want substantial question. 434 944, 98 469, 306. 6 Mexican merchants: Respondent Munoz contract with broker arranging sales Mexico; Martinez De Leon have agreed purchase Mexico. none named courts, all them interested and---to undetermined degree---involved it, participated amicus curiae before Twelve days denied petition rehearing, even initiated present filing Southern complaint seeking prevent terms They those Clause Constitution. Art. I, 8, cl. 3. suffer irreparable harm there no probably succeed merits. Accordingly, issued "from County."2 7 Some months later, ordered show cause why should held guilty contempt violating court's After participated, found again cease County. That order stayed, however, pending outcome Ninth Circuit. Subsequently, granted writ certiorari. 445 903, 100 1077, 63 318. II 8 maintained throughout operates rejecting cited said "this may, otherwise appropriate, restrain unconstitutional statute; surely lose right do merely because been tested courts." reaching same conclusion, reasoned court. It "third F.2d, 1176. our threshold reasoning disregarded teaching 234. railroad union picketing facility. Two years tried failed convince dissolve light intervening decision, instead persuaded enjoin availing [itself] of" injunction. Id., 287, S.Ct., 1743. "although 'to court.' " Ibid. square case. 10 final reason (and reason) supra. There, cement company mandamus ordering road department enforce requiring inspection imported into State. subsequently federal-court statute. 379 (1934 ed.)-the predecessor current Act-did bar hold 11 "assert successful proceeding officials statute, bars district enforcement strangers proceedings. assumes independent suitor This, course, so." U.S., 377-378, 526-527. 12 Neither "as [they parties] court."3 Act.4 13 vacated, remanded Appeals. 14 ordered. 15 POWELL, concurring. 16 I join basis reading 771 (1939), record my willingness reconsider Hale. rarely and-as reads today-it creates exception coverage think policy 17 BLACKMUN, concurring result. 18 For me, somewhat opaque. Perhaps intentionally so. agree BRENNAN were-and necessarily determined be-"strangers proceeding," post, 62, litigation. No principle res judicata evoked applies them. 20 vacating remanding am troubled apparent misreading 234 (1970), analysis Anit-Injunction particular facts 21 At time, disturbed what seems me implication opinion, namely, apply involves different parties. If correct premise, believe indulging new exposition (1939). imposes flat positive prohibition. then allows three exceptions. None exceptions applicable situation us, single-use single parcel land. precedent Hill Martin, 296 393, 403, 56 278, 282, 80 293 (1935), Co., Vendo Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 623, 630, 97 2881, 2887, 53 1009 (1977), supports conclusion issuing restriction. Yet, oust jurisdiction other forms relief, judgment. worth noting, appears made clear, order, will abide resolution issue.* 22 presented inevitable result having two judicial systems. eliminate conflicts, intended. precludes injunctions interfere Heretofore, applied Act's restrictions strictly. expect approach continued. 23 BRENNAN, whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 24 To vacate remand determine 526-527, require perform task undoubtedly already performed. respondents' lawsuit contravene relied conclusion. Necessarily implicit test pertinent respects satisfied accordingly, proceeding."1 25 identifies nothing support apart, perhaps, respondent Munoz' participation Even status sufficient withdrawal party,2 undisputed played any role statement "all [the respondents] it," ante, 57. is, unfounded.3 Under these circumstances, find---yet again---that unnecessary waste resources. dissent affirm. 27 MARSHALL dissents dismiss improvidently granted. unreported. dissenting today rests entirely supposition decided demonstrably untenable: inapplicable, proceeded consider merits petitioners' defense, defense based doctrine event circumstances here presented, accordingly explicitly "in privity" Since decide privity litigation, most assuredly proceeding." contend their comes statutory First, urge jurisdiction" applies. apparently entering judgment, unsupported nullity, therefore subject-matter over questions. proves too much, exception, rule, always apply. Second, assert falls "expressly Congress." cite Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 92 2151, 32 705, undoubted proposition suits 42 1983 exception. prevail, simple rely mention 1983. distinguishable, attack complete legislative scheme being circumstances. differs significantly particularized concerned. similarly instant language quoted 59, suggests impair one's standing "stranger," contrasted "independent court." 378, 527. clearly party. stated: "But plaintiffs herein common property interest McDougal. issue permit; part runs held. Their steps taken perceive Therefore, litigated courts exclusively plaintiffs', must follow lawsuit." App. Pet. Cert. B-5. While true, notes, 60, n.3, Appeals, unlike "declined 'in privity' litigation," refusal bearing disposition claim. respect claim, claim irrelevant.

Category: 8