See 39 M.R.S.A. § 103-E. Moreover, an award may be confirmed by the superior court even if it remains subject to post-order administrative proceedings or a pending appeal. See Cilley v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 519 A.2d 191, 192 (Me.1986); see also 39 M.R.S.A. § 104-A. 4 . Any claim in this case not covered by the foregoing principles would be subject to dismissal under the related doctrine of Burford-type abstention. The state has signalled its interest in regulatory coherency by concentrating all claims in an exclusive administrative process, and parallel federal suits could "in a very real sense ... disrupt the regulatory scheme.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sabbagh, 603 F.2d 228, 233 (1st Cir.1979); see also Bath Memorial Hosp. v. Maine Health Care Fin. Com., 853 F.2d 1007, 1013 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Construction Aggregates Corp., 573 F.2d at
holding that courts should only abstain under younger if the state proceedings are coercive and not remedial and citing a number of district court opinions holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings holding that federal district courts should abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration