why European courts possess expertise in EU 261 that this Court cannot adequately grasp with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims which would warrant deferring to a European court. See Arsberry, 244 F.3d at 563; Ryan v. Chemlawn Corp., 935 F.2d 129, 131 (7th Cir.1991) (acknowledging courts should consider the “special competence of an administrative body” in determining whether to stay -a case based on primary jurisdiction doctrine). Furthermore, there is no evidence of a pending adjudication of Plaintiffs’ complaints under EU 261 in any European court that would warrant the Court staying this case in order to allow for its resolution. See, e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., No. 11 C 02937, 2016 WL 1298124 at *4 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 20, 2016) (<HOLDING>). As a result, the Court declines to stay the
holding that in a diversityjurisdiction case involving only state claims the primaryjurisdiction doctrine does not apply in favor of a state agency as compared to a federal agency and holding that even if the doctrine were to apply a federal district court sitting in diversity would defer to a state agencys primary jurisdiction only if state courts would so defer holding primary jurisdiction doctrine does not apply because defendant did not identify with precision any relevant proceedings to which this court should defer for the resolution of the question presented holding law of case doctrine is procedural and does not go to jurisdiction of court holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below holding that if presented with this situation as a matter of first impression the court would not extend the doctrine where the new lender is not a guarantor because in that case the earmarking doctrine does not help either the new creditor nor the debtor