SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant McGRX, Inc. appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Reiss, J.), granting, in part, Appellees’ motion to dismiss, granting Appellees’ motion for abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and denying Appellant’s motion to amend its Second Amended Complaint.

We affirm on the limited ground of Younger abstention. Younger clearly applies here and mandates federal court abstention. Thus, we need not reach the *75 other issues addressed by the district court regarding standing or Appellant’s alleged failure to state a claim. See Spargo v. N.Y. State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct, 351 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 2003).

Younger requires federal courts to abstain if: “(1) there is a pending state proceeding, (2) that implicates an important state interest, and (3) the state proceeding affords the federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity for judicial review of his or her federal ... claims.” Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 100-01 (2d Cir. 2004).

Here, it is undisputed that there is a pending state proceeding. Although that proceeding was filed after this federal action, that is no bar to Younger abstention as no “proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in federal court.” See Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975).

The underlying state action undoubtedly implicates an important state interest. In that action Vermont seeks to remedy consumer fraud allegedly committed by Appellant as well as to protect the financial integrity of its Medicaid program — both important state interests. See, e.g., Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 97 S.Ct. 1911, 52 L.Ed.2d 486 (1977).

Finally, Appellant will have an adequate opportunity to raise its federal claims in the state action. Doe v. Conn., Dep’t of Health Servs., 75 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 1996). The Vermont state court is more than capable of addressing Appellant’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id.; see also, e.g., Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, 176 Vt. 140, 838 A.2d 117 (2003).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. Appellant’s other motions on this appeal are denied as moot.