The AGO contends that the instant action is related to Judge Zobel's three prior civil actions (discussed infra). The AGO also contends that this lawsuit violates Judge Zobel's Order enjoining the Plaintiffs, and, in any event, the action is barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Next, the AGO contends that, to the extent this action is construed as one raising a federal constitutional challenge to a state statute, the Massachusetts Attorney General is not a proper Defendant based solely on her role as chief litigation counsel for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, citing Shell Oil Co. v.Noel, 608 F.2d 208, 211 (1st Cir. 1979) (mere fact that an attorney general has a duty to prosecute actions in which the state has an interest is not sufficient to make him or her a proper defendant in every action challenging the constitutionality of a state statute); Aguiar v. Russo, 2009 WL 1137916, at *3 n. 7 (D. Mass. 2009); and CSWS, LLC v. Madigan, 2009 WL 1789368, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Finally, the Defendant contends that this action essentially seeks review of an unfavorable Massachusetts Appeals Court decision, and as such, is foreclosed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.