The relevant Ninth Circuit case law does not establish such a rule. Ninth Circuit law prohibits the exercise of Colorado River “to stay proceedings as to claims within exclusive federal jurisdiction,” Minucci v. Agrama, 868 F.2d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir.1989) (emphasis added). Thus, it is not appropriate to stay a claim subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction as that claim cannot be resolved, as framed, in state court. Id. (reversing district court’s Colorado River stay of a federal copyright claim because copyright claims cannot be heard in state court); Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Arizona Downs, 670 F.2d 813, 821 (9th Cir.1982) (finding abuse of discretion where district court dismissed federal antitrust claims under Colorado River); Silberkleit v. Kantrowitz, 713 F.2d 433 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Court will not stay any claim that
holding that claims under  10b of the securities exchange act of 1934 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement holding that colorado river abstention test is inapplicable where the declaratory judgment act is involved holding that the district court could not stay erisa and 1934 act claims under colorado river holding that colorado river ab stention is inapplicable to actions requesting declaratory relief holding that claims under the securities act of 1934 and the rico statutes are arbitrable