Opinion ID: 788062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injunctions in in rem and in personam actions

Text: 28 The Supreme Court in Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 43 S.Ct. 79, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922), addressing the propriety of enjoining state-court actions under the All Writs Act, distinguished in rem from in personam actions. A federal court with jurisdiction over an in rem action may enjoin a later-filed state court action involving the same res, because the effect of filing the in rem action in federal court is to draw to the federal court the possession or control, actual or potential, of the res,  and a state court's exercise of jurisdiction necessarily impairs, and may defeat, the federal court's jurisdiction. Id. at 229, 43 S.Ct. 79. In contrast, an in personam action involves a controversy over liability rather than over possession of a thing: [A] controversy over a mere question of personal liability does not involve the possession or control of a thing, and an action brought to enforce such a liability does not tend to impair or defeat the jurisdiction of the court in which a prior action for the same cause is pending. Id. at 230, 43 S.Ct. 79. The Court held that where the action first brought is in personam and seeks only a personal judgment, another action for the same cause in another jurisdiction is not precluded. Id. The Court concluded that a federal district court, hearing a suit in equity arising from a contract dispute, lacked authority under the All Writs Act to enjoin a parallel action in Arkansas state court for breach of contract. See id. at 227-28, 235, 43 S.Ct. 79. 29 Since Kline, the Supreme Court has never held that a district court may enjoin, as necessary in aid of the district court's jurisdiction, a parallel in personam state action. See Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 642, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977) (plurality opinion) (We have never viewed parallel in personam actions as interfering with the jurisdiction of either court ....). There is no dispute that the Securities Litigation, although a complex, multidistrict litigation, is an in personam action against defendants. Defendants argue that, under our decision in In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328, the Securities Litigation is the virtual equivalent of a res,  id. at 337, so that the District Court was authorized to enjoin a later-filed related action in the Alabama Circuit Court.