Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): substantially less than that amount. Having reviewed Zee Medical’s complaint, we are satisfied that federal jurisdiction is proper. Given the extensive claims made by Zee Medical in its complaint and the remedies available under those claims, it cannot be said with legal certainty that Zee Medical would recover less than $75,000 if it prevails in this matter. See Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Society v. Manganaro, 342 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.2003). B. Denial of Preliminary Injunction Ordinarily, this court reviews the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir.2003). Zee Medical, however, argues that the district court applied the wrong standard when it ruled on the motion. See id. at 1188-89 (<HOLDING>). Even if we assume for purposes of this appeal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted (B) holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success (C) holding the interests of justice require that in a doubtful case  any error if there is to be one should be committed in favor of allowing a class action citations omitted (D) holding that when the three harm factors tip decidedly in the movants favor the probability of success requirement is somewhat relaxed and the movant need only show questions going to the merits so serious substantial difficult and doubtful as to make them a fair ground for litigation citations and quotations omitted (E) holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest
Output (English): holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success