contest that the first three Colorado River factors support federal jurisdiction. R. 7-1 at 23-26. As such, this Court will focus on the last five factors to determine whether abstention is appropriate. With respect to the fourth factor—the “order in which jurisdiction was obtained”—Randy filed his action in state court six weeks before the plaintiffs filed this action in federal court. R. 7-1 at 23-24 (noting the state-court action was filed on December 17, 2015, while this action was filed on February 2, 2016). As such, this factor appears to cut in favor of abstention. This factor, however, “should not be measured exclusively by which complaint was filed first, but rather in terms of how much progress has been made in the two actions.” Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 21, 103 S.Ct. 927 (<HOLDING>). Here, the plaintiffs have only recently filed
holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding that a 19day difference between the filings of the state court and federal court actions was immaterial given the absence of progress in the statecourt action and the substantial proceedings that had occurred in the federal court 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