Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): agency which administers the scheme.’ ” Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 781 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1362 (9th Cir. 1987)). Courts consider the following non-exhaustive factors in deciding whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies: “(1) the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.” Id. The doctrine “is to be used only if a claim ‘requires resolution of an issue of first impr -4387, 2011 WL 2111796, at *15 (N.D.Cal. May 26, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Chacanaca, 752 F.Supp.2d at 1124 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although doctrine of primary jurisdiction required trial court to abate claims over which agency had primary jurisdiction trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing temporary injunction to maintain the status quo (B) holding that primary jurisdiction did not apply where the court had to determine whether defendants all natural claims were misleading (C) holding that primary jurisdiction did not apply to claims of violation of fda regulations and guidance concerning all natural fresh antioxidant and other nutrient claims (D) holding that the natural gas act did not completely preempt state law claims within its scope and thus the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the contract price dispute filed in state court (E) holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act
Output (English): holding that the natural gas act did not completely preempt state law claims within its scope and thus the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the contract price dispute filed in state court