court had already considered the approximately 61 pages of briefing on that motion. This additional involvement by the district court in the merits of the Dormant Commerce Clause case further weighs against Younger abstention. The amount of time the federal cases had .been pending prior to the state case being filed (approximately seven months in the First Amendment case and six months in the Dormant Commerce Clause case) also weighs against Younger abstention. Although a case may remain in the “embryonic stage” for a long time in certain circumstances, see Forty One News, Inc. v. Cty. of Lake, 491 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2007), we still consider the length of time (together with. the rest of the facts) in determining whether Younger abstention is appropriate, see Hoye, 653 F.3d at 844 (<HOLDING>). We also note, although it does not affect our
holding that three and onehalf months between the filing of an eeoc charge and the adverse employment action was insufficient by itself to establish causation holding that abstention was inappropriate in part because six months elapsed between filing of the federal case and filing of the state case holding that where law not facts changed between filing and conversion law in effect on date of filing controls holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect holding that party waived disqualification complaint by filing her motion six and onehalf months after learning of the potential conflict