River, 424 U.S. at 818, 96 S.Ct. 1236. 1. Parallel Proceedings Defendants argue that the Colorado River doctrine is applicable in the instant case because a parallel proceeding exists at the state court level. Specifically, defendants contend that both the state and federal actions revolve around the general mismanagement of Enfission by its board members. Plaintiff answers that the present action involves claims by Enfission against Leaver individually, and does not include the actions of Livingston, Winn, or Biogenesis. Consequently, before considering any “exceptional circumstances,” it is first necessary for this Court to determine whether parallel proceedings exist. See, e.g., Moses H. Com Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Parallel proceedings exist when substantially
recognizing that application of the colorado river doctrine presumably concludes that the parallel statecourt litigation will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim holding that the adversity of the parties interests as to the duty to indemnify will not be complete until after the resolution of the underlying action when it will be clear whether the insured can assert a claim for indemnity from his insurer recognizing that the artful pleading doctrine in practice is subsumed by the complete preemption doctrine recognizing doctrine