and because CME clarified during the hearing that it meant to move for a stay, I treat this as an original motion to stay. In essence, as I have stated previously in this Order, CME argues that I should defer to the STB as an expert agency and allow it to decide the dispute because it concerns the nature and legal extent of federal agency authorizations. CME contends that the doctrine of exclusive primary jurisdiction is applicable because this action “requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.” Funbus Systems, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Com., 801 F.2d 1120, 1129 (9th Cir.1986), citing United States v. Western Pac R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64, 77, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956) (<HOLDING>). [The] doctrine [of primary jurisdiction]
holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury holding that the stb has primary jurisdiction to determine whether operations conducted by an stbcertified carrier are within the scope of its certificate holding that primary jurisdiction did not apply where the court had to determine whether defendants all natural claims were misleading holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority 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