between the same parties.” Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Boston Gas Co., 76 F.Supp.2d 59, 62 (D.Mass.1999). The absence of any question of federal law here eliminates a potential federal interest in entertaining this case sufficient to override the inefficiencies of dual proceedings. Finally, the judge presiding over the NY Action also proceeded over the Row Action. Doc. No. 19 at 15. Accordingly, he has a much stronger grasp of the underlying facts and issues than this Court. This too counsels towards declining jurisdiction. H&A relies heavily on the fact that the federal case came first, and, as a corollary, that the Court should respect its choice of venue as plaintiff. See Doc. No. 21 at 13-14. This alone, however, is not dispositive. See Wilton, 515 U.S. at 280, 290, 115 S.Ct. 2137 (<HOLDING>). While the Court acknowledges H&A’s concerns,
holding that the district court in that case properly abstained from hearing a case brought under the declaratory judgment act as a matter of its discretion where a parallel or concurrent action in state court was already underway 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 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