primary jurisdiction: Pursuant to Davis-Bacon Act regulations, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor is responsible for resolving “disputes of fact or law concerning payment of prevailing wage rates, overtime pay, or proper classifications.” 29 C.F.R. § 5.11(a). Second, Smith alleges that he was paid a wage that did not correlate with any Davis-Bacon Act wage schedule on the City Market and National Zoo projects. These allegations do riot seem to implicate primary jurisdiction. To assess the merit of these claims, the district court need only compare Smith’s pay stub with the applicable Davis-Bacon wage schedules to determine whether the pay matches up. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Const., L.L.C., 697 F.3d 345, 354 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Although it may be proper for a district
holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim holding that primary jurisdiction referral was unnecessary because the core dispute here involved misrepresentation not misclassification holding that it is clear that ebys misrepresentation claim as it is presented here is a contractual one