Fierle

MEMORANDUM ***

Patricia and Daniel Fierle appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their complaint pursuant to the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the Colorado River factors. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 870 (9th Cir.2002). As a threshold requirement, the federal and state court actions must be “substantially similar.” Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir.1989); see Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28 , 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (“[Pjarallel state-court litigation [must] be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties.”). Regardless of the Nevada Supreme Court’s ultimate decision, all of the Fierles’ claims are in some way before *142 it. Thus, the district court’s finding that the parallel state and federal actions were substantially similar was not an abuse of discretion.

The district court’s balancing of the other Colorado River factors is…