was unable to meet its burden of showing that remedy under § 1581(c) was manifestly inadequate. Id. at 964. Having found that the plaintiff-appellant could not establish standing under either § 1581(c), nor § 1581(i), the Miller court dismissed the Complaint. Id. Here, NuFarm is seeking to have its potential class members assert jurisdiction under § 1581(i), while NuFarm itself has already established jurisdiction under § 1581(a) for identical claims. See Plaintiffs Motion at 20 (stating “it appears that the great majority of the members of the class have jurisdiction for their claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). . . .”) Under Miller, the scope of § 1581(i) jurisdiction is “strictly limited.” Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F. 2d 356, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals in Thomson examined a
holding that the remedy under another subsection of  1581 is not manifestly inadequate because  1581s builtin safeguards and limitations    are not to be dismissed because they are inconvenient holding that decisions that lie within the trial courts discretion are to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that surveys are admissible only if they are conducted with proper safeguards to insure accuracy and reliability holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute