Opinion ID: 529730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the expressly authorized exception

Text: 25 The district court's order appealed from contains the four Anti-Injunction Act elements. Our next step, then, is to determine whether the order comes within any of the three exceptions provided in the statute. 26 The absolute bar against federal injunctive measures contemplated by the Act is qualified only by specifically defined exceptions, Richman Bros. Co., 348 U.S. at 516, 75 S.Ct. at 455,--exceptions to be read narrowly: not enlarged by loose statutory construction, Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at ----, 108 S.Ct. at 1689, or whittled away by judicial improvisation, Richman Bros., 348 U.S. at 514, 75 S.Ct. at 454. Moreover, [a]ny doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy. Atlantic Coast Lines, 398 U.S. at 297, 90 S.Ct. at 1748. Unless one of the exceptions governs the order, federal courts are absolute[ly] prohibit[ed] from enjoining a state judicial proceeding. Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 2887, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977); Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 228-29, 92 S.Ct. at 2154-55. 27 The Anti-Injunction Act sets out three circumstances in which its bar will not apply: where the injunction (1) is expressly authorized by Congress; (2) is necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction; or (3) is necessary to protect or effectuate the federal court's judgment. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283. Only the first exception--expressly authorized by Congress--is asserted here. 28 In the leading case construing the expressly authorized exception, Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972), the Court commented that the preempting federal statute need not contain a direct reference to section 2283 nor specifically provide for the district judge's issuance of an injunction against state proceedings. Id. at 237, 92 S.Ct. at 2159. See Richman Bros., 348 U.S. at 516, 75 S.Ct. at 455 (no prescribed formula required). Instead, the pertinent test is whether an Act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right or remedy enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state court proceeding. Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 238, 92 S.Ct. at 2160. 29 In Mitchum the Court ruled that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 expressly authorized federal injunctions against state courts, and thus was an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. In reaching that result, the Court relied principally on section 1983's legislative history, which chronicled explicit congressional concern over the failure of state courts to enforce constitutional rights during the Reconstruction Era. 30 Five years after Mitchum was decided, the Court in Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977), held that the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 26, was not an express exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. In a plurality opinion, four Justices noted that the clear congressional distrust with state court enforcement apparent in section 1983's legislative history was wholly lacking in the antitrust context. Id. at 632-33, 97 S.Ct. at 2888 (plurality opinion). 3 31 The Supreme Court has not had the occasion to consider whether Congress expressly intended ERISA to authorize federal injunctions against state court proceedings. The question, then, is an open one whose resolution necessitates a review of the pertinent ERISA provisions. 32 ERISA authorizes a beneficiary of a plan to bring a civil action to recover benefits due. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B). Such suits may be brought either in a state court of competent jurisdiction or in a federal district court. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(e)(1). Musisko instituted just such a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas, where Judge Silvestri was entitled to exercise his concurrent state court jurisdiction. 33 ERISA also authorizes participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries to file a civil action to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of this subchapter. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3). These actions must be brought in the United States District Courts, which have exclusive jurisdiction in such cases. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(e)(1). 34 Conspicuously absent from the language of this ERISA injunction provision is any suggestion of its use by federal courts against state tribunals. The lack of a specific reference is not determinative, but in such absence the legislative history must contain adequate proof that Congress recognized and intended the statute to authorize injunction of state-court proceedings. Vendo Co., 433 U.S. at 633, 97 S.Ct. at 2888 (plurality opinion). 35 The legislative history of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3) is replete with references to Congress' desire that beneficiaries have adequate remedies to vindicate their rights under an employee benefit plan. See, e.g., H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1280, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 326, reprinted in 3 Committee Print, Legislative History of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 4593 (1976) [hereinafter Legislative History ] and 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4639, 5106; S.Rep. No. 383, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1973), reprinted in 1 Legislative History at 1078 and 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 4898. See 119 Cong.Rec. 3,0005 (Sept. 18, 1973) (statement of Sen. Williams), reprinted in 2 Legislative History at 1604 (For the first time, plan participants would also be given the right to seek appropriate relief in both Federal and State courts against fiduciaries for violations committed by them with respect to a pension plan). 36 Nowhere in the comprehensive legislative record is there any indication that Congress intended to authorize injunctions against state courts. Indeed, the very act of delegating concurrent jurisdiction to the state courts for resolution of beneficiaries' claims is evidence of Congress' satisfaction that state tribunals would fairly and competently adjudicate such cases. In contrast to the misgivings about state courts articulated in section 1983's legislative history, see Mitchum, 407 U.S. at 238-42, 92 S.Ct. at 2159-62, the grant of jurisdiction to the state judiciaries to resolve ERISA claims represents a congressional vote of confidence. 37 The ERISA enforcement section's language and its legislative history are inadequate to demonstrate a congressional desire to defeat the bar of section 2283. The federal plaintiffs have failed to produce sufficient evidence in the legislative history demonstrating that Congress recognized and intended the statute to authorize injunction of state court proceedings. Vendo Co., 433 U.S. at 633, 97 S.Ct. at 2888 (plurality opinion). The Anti-Injunction Act was directed at preventing a federal appellate review function in litigation in which the state and federal courts had equal competence. Id. at 658 (Stevens, J., dissenting). The district court's order attempts to exercise just such an impermissible review function in this case. 38 Plaintiffs cite Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987), and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987), as support for their assertion that ERISA was intended to entirely preempt the field of employee benefit plans. See also Shiffler v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 838 F.2d 78, 81 (3d Cir.1988). There are some exceptions to that proposition, see Mackey v. Lanier Collections Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 885 F.2d 79 (3d Cir. 1989), but even if it were all-inclusive, the fact of preemption does not control application of the Anti-Injunction Act. 39 A federal court may not enjoin state court proceedings merely because they invade an area pre-empted by federal law even when the interference is unmistakably clear, Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at ----, 108 S.Ct. at 1691, or where the incursion upon a federally pre-empted domain dislocates the federal scheme as a whole, Richman Bros., 348 U.S. at 517, 75 S.Ct. at 456. The fact that the state proceeding presents a preemption issue does not alter the respect due the state tribunal. [T]he proper course is to seek resolution of that issue by the state court. Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at ----, 108 S.Ct. at 1691. 4 40 The federal plaintiffs also rely on several cases applying the Anti-Injunction Act in the ERISA context. In General Motors Corp. v. Buha, 623 F.2d 455 (6th Cir.1980), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, in a case involving state garnishment proceedings, that ERISA's enforcement section was an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. In that case a fiduciary, the trustee of an employee pension plan, instituted a federal suit to challenge the enforcement of a state court's writ of garnishment obtained by a beneficiary's creditor. The Court of Appeals noted that the fiduciary was not a party to the state court proceedings, and could not have raised its objections to garnishment there. 41 On those facts, the Court of Appeals concluded that where a state court action makes it impossible for a fiduciary to carry out its responsibilities under ERISA, the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. Id. at 459. Although we have some reservations about that ruling, we are convinced that the important factual differences between that case and this one--particularly in the type of plan and the nature of the relationship between the federal plaintiffs and their insurer Equitable--make Buha distinguishable. 42 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Gilbert v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 765 F.2d 320 (2d Cir.1985), aff'd, 477 U.S. 901, 106 S.Ct. 3267, 91 L.Ed.2d 558 (1986), held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not preclude a plan administrator from obtaining injunctive relief against a state administrative proceeding. Without discussion, the Court concluded that even if section 2283 applied to administrative proceedings, which are often circumstance dependent, see New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2506, 2517-20, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989), the requested injunction fell within the expressly authorized exception. Id. at 329. In the absence of any explanation from the Court why it reached that conclusion, we are not swayed by it. 43 We do not consider the remaining case citations persuasive in the circumstances here. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in another case acknowledged the Buha ruling in an ERISA appeal, but resolved a claim by a beneficiary on abstention grounds without having to consider section 2283. Levy v. Lewis, 635 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir.1980). In a second phase of the case, the Court denied a claim for breach of fiduciary duties on the merits. Id. at 967-68. See also Senco of Florida, Inc. v. Clark, 473 F.Supp. 902 (M.D.Fla.1979) (injunction denied on merits); Cartledge v. Miller, 457 F.Supp. 1146 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (same).