the range [of eases] within which a district court may exercise discretion [to abstain],” a question over which we exercise plenary review. Grode v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co., 8 F.3d 953, 957 (3d Cir.1993). That is, we must determine whether the state and federal proceedings at issue here are indeed parallel, inasmuch as Colorado River abstention is otherwise inapplicable. Trent, at 223-24 (recognizing that court must first determine whether state and federal proceedings are parallel). Although federal and state actions need not be wholly identical in order for a district court to deem them “parallel,” the two actions will not be deemed parallel unless they are substantially similar. Compare Caminiti and Iatarola v. Behnke Warehousing Inc., 962 F.2d 698, 701 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416-17
holding slight difference in parties and issues is insufficient to destroy parallel nature of two proceedings where granting of relief request ed in state court would dispose of all claims raised in federal action 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 the district court had discretion to stay declaratory judgment action where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court 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 district court act ed within its bounds in staying this action for declaratory relief where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court even when the federal proceeding began before the state one