the inconvenience of a federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; and (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained. 424 U.S. at 818, 96 S.Ct. 1236. The Court later added two more considerations in Cone, supra: (5) whether state or federal law controls the decision on the merits; and (6) whether state law can adequately protect the rights of the parties. 460 U.S. at 24, 103 S.Ct. 927. Another factor mentioned, but not applied by the Court in Cone, was the vexatious or reactive nature of the federal suit. Id. at 17 n. 20, 103 S.Ct. 927. Consequently, federal courts have also used that factor in their analysis for purposes of the Colorado River doctrine analysis. See, e.g., Villa Marina Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Hatteras Yachts, 947 F.2d 529, 534 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Medema v. Medema Builders, Inc., 854
holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when considering the reactive nature of the federal claim