National Union’s action was really a declaratory judgment action disguised as an interpleader action, and because there was not complete diversity of citizenship the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. In the alternative, the defendants argued that the district court should abstain from adjudicating the declaratory claim in National Union’s complaint, and allow the issue of coverage to be determined in Stephanie Freeman’s estate’s direct action against National Union in Connecticut state court. The defendants also opposed National Union’s request for injunctive relief. The district court denied the motion to transfer venue. Further, relying on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2144, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (<HOLDING>), the district court determined that, although
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 that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action 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 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