Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or of a particularly complicated issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency.’ ” Time Warner, 523 F.3d at 1114 (quoting Brown v. MCI WorldCom Network Servs., 277 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2002)). As previously noted, plaintiffs case does not require this court to determine difficult issues of first impression better left to the FDA’s expertise, but instead only requires the application of well-understood FDA regulations directly on point. “[T]he FDA’s expertise ... is not necessary to determine whether the labels are misleading, [and the] reasonable consumer determination and other issues involved in [this] lawsuit are within the expertise of the courts to resolve.” Delacruz, 2012 WL 2563857, at *10; see also Brazil, 935 F.Supp.2d at 959-61, 2013 WL 1209955, at *10-11 ; Astiana v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., No.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that primary jurisdiction did not apply to claims of violation of fda regulations and guidance concerning all natural fresh antioxidant and other nutrient claims
B. holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda
C. holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
D. holding that primary jurisdiction did not apply where the court had to determine whether defendants all natural claims were misleading
E. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.