
    Scott STORICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CFG, LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-12793
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 31, 2013.
    Roger Alan Slade, Olesia Y. Belchenko, Maria Soledad Bodero, Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robert E. Battle, Adam Patterson Plant, Battle & Winn, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Catherine Chesney Grieve, Rivero Mestre LLP, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Scott Storick appeals the district court’s order granting CFG, LLC’s (CFG) Motion to Dismiss his amended complaint brought pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Storick’s declaratory judgment action due to a parallel garnishment proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. On appeal, Storick contends the dismissal of his case was improper.

We review the district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for an abuse of discretion. Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.2005). “[W]e will leave undisturbed a district court’s ruling unless we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard.” Id.

A district court has discretion to determine “whether and when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2140, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995). In fact, the Supreme Court has stated “it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties.” Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 1175-76, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942). This Court has provided nine non-exhaustive factors to guide district courts in determining “whether to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over state-law claims in the face of parallel litigation in the state courts.” Ameritas, 411 F.3d at 1331 (quotations omitted).

Storick cannot establish an abuse of discretion by the district court. The district court thoughtfully applied the guideposts set forth in Ameritas and concluded the overall balance of the factors solidly supported abstention. We agree with the district court’s conclusion, and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned order. We note that although Storick accuses CFG of “procedural fencing” by obtaining a confession of judgment in Delaware, Storick expressly agreed to allow CFG to confess judgment in Delaware for a long-standing debt he admits he owes.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Storick’s amended complaint, we need not consider his argument regarding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
     
      
      . We deny Storick’s "Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal,” construed as a motion to take judicial notice of the June 12, 2012, orders filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.
     