the specific and narrowly-defined issue of standing. Prior case law in this circuit supports this conclusion. In NBA, we affirmed an injunction only insofar as it prevented the state court from taking a different approach on issues previously decided in the district court’s original decision. See 56 F.3d at 872. Similarly, in the present case we hold that the district court acted properly in issuing an injunction preventing the state court from taking a different approach on the issue of standing to pursue a class action in the absence of an alleged conspiracy or without alleging direct injury. The injunction is not so broad as to foreclose the pursuit of any federal or state court action including claims and parties common to the already decided federal action. See id. at 872 (<HOLDING>). On the contrary, appellants may attain
holding slight difference in parties and issues is insufficient to destroy parallel nature of two proceedings where granting of relief request ed in state court would dispose of all claims raised in federal action holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings holding that the district court act ed within its bounds in staying this action for declaratory relief where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court even when the federal proceeding began before the state one holding that the district court had discretion to stay declaratory judgment action where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court