ORDER

SHARION AYCOCK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Hugh E. Brown. This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred in Pontotoc County, Mississippi on November 8, 2012. In the instant Motion [7], Defendant Brown requests that this federal case be stayed pending the outcome of a related action in the Circuit Court of Pontotoc County, Mississippi, or in the alternative for additional time to respond to the complaint. The other parties in this action have not responded to this motion, and the allotted time for doing so has expired. L. U. CIV. R. 7(b)(4).

The circumstances in which a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case when a related action is pending in state court are narrow. Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976); Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 28, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L. Ed. 2d 765 (1982). Under the Colorado River doctrine, a court may abstain from a case that is part of "parallel, duplicative litigation under `exceptional circumstances'." Saucier v. Aviva Life & Annuity Co., 701 F.3d 458, 462 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kelly Inv., Inc. v. Continental Common Corp., 315 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2002); see Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236. When one case is pending in state court and the other in federal court, "only the clearest of justifications" will warrant a stay. Id.; see also Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 28, 103 S.Ct. 927. Further, the Fifth Circuit has identified "parallel actions" as those "involving the same parties and the same issues." African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Lucien, 756 F.3d 788, 797 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Exxon Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 1997); Republic Bank Dallas Nat'l Ass'n v. McIntosh, 828 F.2d 1120, 1121 (5th Cir. 1987); PPG Indus., Inc. v. Cont'l Oil Co., 478 F.2d 674, 682 (5th Cir. 1973)).

In support of his motion to stay, Defendant Brown maintains that there is a related action pending in state court that arose out of the same accident, and involves the same defendants, but was brought by a different plaintiff. According to Brown there is also a third-party complaint pending in the state court case that should be resolved prior to the prosecution of this federal action.1 Because the related state court action involves different parties, this federal case is not a parallel action for abstention purposes.2 Id.

With no clear justification to support a stay, the court finds that the instant case does not fall within the narrow parameters for abstention articulated by the Supreme Court and adopted by the Fifth Circuit. Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 819, 96 S.Ct. 1236; Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 28, 103 S.Ct. 927; Saucier, 701 F.3d at 462.

For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to stay is DENIED.

The Defendant's alternative motion for additional time to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED. A response must be filed by November 30, 2015.

SO ORDERED.