With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". motion to stay the proceedings pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine. Id. at 740-41. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the state lien proceeding and the federal breach of contract action were not parallel. Id. at 741-43. The court found the federal contract action and the state lien action involved different issues with different requisites of proof. Id. at 742. Further, the remedies were different as the state lien action sought foreclosure on property (here, the bond proceeds) and the federal contract action sought compensatory damages. Id. at 743. Thus, the federal contract action and the state lien action were not parallel proceedings and Colorado River abstention did not apply. Id.; see also New Beckley Mining Corp. v. UMW, 946 F.2d 1072, 1074 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the state lien foreclosure proceeding

A: holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies
B: holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union
C: holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result
D: holding state and federal actions not parallel for colorado river purposes because the remedies were different  one was equitable and the other compensatory  and the sources of law came from different states
D.