if after examining the evidence, it is left with “[a] ‘definite and firm’ conviction that the court below committed [a] clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” See Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1293 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Hoffman v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (In re Benedictin Litig.), 857 F.2d 290, 370 (6th Cir.1988)). Gillis argues the district court should not have exercised jurisdiction over the instant case because R&M was a necessary party and because his state lawsuit against A&P and R&M was still pending. In the instant case, the district court had discretion, based on general principles of practicality and wise judicial administration, to decide whether to exercise its jurisdiction. See Wilton, 515 U.S. at 288 (<HOLDING>). The district court also considered the
holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code holding that decisions in declaratory judgment actions must yield to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration and the desire of insurance companies and their insureds to receive declarations in federal court on matters of purely state law has no special call on the federal forum recognizing a district courts vast discretion in the declaratory judgment context holding that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate common law claims violated article iii without deciding the claims holding in the declaratory judgment context the normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration