cert. denied, 474 U.S. 909, 106 S.Ct. 279, 88 L.Ed.2d 244 (1985). The district court did not err in analogizing this case to Puritan Fashions. For these reasons, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in granting the stay. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). 2 . Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). 3 . There has been conflict among the cases in this circuit concerning whether the Colorado River/Moses Cone factors should apply to a declaratory judgment action. See generally, Mission Insurance Co. v. Puritan Fashions, Corp., 706 F.2d 599, 601 n. 1 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Evans-ton Insurance Co. v. Jimco, Inc., 844
holding that the exceptional circumstances test does not apply to declaratory judgment actions 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 moses conecolorado river factors do not apply to declaratory judgment actions holding that the case or controversy requirement applies with equal force to actions for declaratory judgment