chose to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. The Marcuses argue on appeal, as they did before the district court, that the Colorado River doctrine is inapplicable to the present case because the federal and state proceedings are not parallel for purposes of Colorado River abstention. That is, they argue that: (1) the issues before the state and federal courts are different, as are the parties and the facts; (2) the state court action cannot afford them the relief they seek in federal court; and (3) the resolution of the state court action will not dispose of the issues pending before the federal court. I agree. A. As in all cases in which we are asked to review a district court’s decision to abstain, we must determine, as a threshold matter, “[wjhether this case falls Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>) with University of Md. v. Peat Marwick Main &
holding that the brillhart standard rather than more narrow colorado river standard applied to district courts decision to dismiss a federal statutory interpleader action in favor of parallel state court proceedings holding that a federal action was properly stayed pending the outcome of parallel state proceedings where the action involved a matter of state policythe scope of eminent domain powers of municipalities under state law holding suits to be parallel where federal action is but a spinoff of more comprehensive state litigation holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings holding that state fraudbased claims are parallel or genuinely equivalent to federal law