case and the court is not convinced that the state court action will necessarily dispose of all the claims presently before it, this court concludes that these actions are not parallel pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine. Accordingly, the court must exercise its jurisdiction. The court, therefore, finds it unnecessary to review the factors, such as whether this ease was filed in a vexatious or reactive nature, that are relevant only after the threshold showing of parallel actions is made. THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Ms. Brown’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay the Instant Case (doc. #25) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Ms. Brown assumes that the Kansas comparative fault statute applies in the Missouri state court action. See Wise v. Pottorff, 987 S.W.2d 407, 410 (Mo.App.W.D.1999) (<HOLDING>); cf. Hicks v. Graves Truck Lines, Inc., 707
holding that in determining whether an accident arose out of employment the issue is whether the employees employment brought him in contact with the risk that in fact caused his injuries holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it responded to the plaintiffs offer to contract despite the fact that a contract was never formally signed holding kansas comparative fault statute applied where the accident occurred in kansas and the only missouri contact with the accident was the fact that one of the parties  resided in missouri distinguishing hicks based on the lack significant contacts with missouri holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it chose to enter into a contract with the plaintiff that was to be performed at least in part in kansas and then the defendant continued to be in contact with the plaintiff regarding the contract holding that summary judgment on plaintiffs res ipsa loquitur theory was precluded both because there existed genuine issues of material fact as to the cause of the accident and whether or not one of the defendants had exclusive control over the instrumentality of the accident