With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were with private landlords. As a result, when the NYCHA terminated their Section 8 benefits and they were no longer able to pay their rent, the private landlords commenced eviction proceedings against the plaintiffs. The court held that the “in aid of jurisdiction” to the Anti-Injunction Act applied, reasoning that: Unless eviction proceedings are stayed long enough to adjudicate plaintiffs’ alleged right to retroactive reinstatement in the Section 8 program, plaintiffs will be evicted before this case can be decided. In this event, the Court will be unable to accord meaningful relief to the parties. Reinstatement in S , 1002 (4th Cir.1970) (affirming the district court’s injunction of a state court eviction proceeding where t CV-5883, 2006 WL 354983, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006) (<HOLDING>); cf. Atl. Coast Line, 398 U.S. at 295, 90

A: holding that because the pending eviction proceedings do not give plaintiffs an adequate forum to challenge termination of their section 8 assistance  under the exceptions to the doctrine of younger abstention and the antiinjunction act the court may stay housing court proceedings until the validity of the termination of plaintiffs assistance can be decided
B: holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the suffolk county district court fifth district because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs claims under the real estate settlement procedures act
C: holding federal court was not precluded by antiinjunction act from enjoining florida state court after state court entered a preliminary order
D: holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings because claims for rescission under tila can be brought in state court including as a defense to an eviction claim in housing court
D.