claim. The district court did not apply either Brillhart or Colorado River in its analysis, but did characterize Trans-ocean’s federal suit as “virtually tantamount to a declaratory judgment action. ...” (4/19/06 Order & Reasons at 10.) There was no finding, however, that Transocearis breach of contract claim was frivolous or that it was included solely to prevent application of the more lenient Brillhart standard. See Kelly Inv., Inc. v. Cont’l Common Corp., 315 F.3d 494, 497 n. 4 (5th Cir.2002) (applying Colorado River when claims for coercive relief were not frivolous and there was no evidence they were added solely to avoid Brillhart). Thus, under this court’s precedent, stay of the federal proceedings must be analyzed under Colorado River. See Southwind Aviation, 23 F.3d at 951 (<HOLDING>). A. Colorado River Analysis We turn now to
holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract holding that colorado river ab stention is inapplicable to actions requesting declaratory relief holding that colorado river abstention test is inapplicable where the declaratory judgment act is involved holding that because suit requested damages for breach of contract colorado river applied even though district court characterized suit as declaratory judgment action holding that the district court could not stay erisa and 1934 act claims under colorado river