Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): were issued because in order to market a pesticide in the United States, the pesticide product must be registered with the EPA or be allowed within the provisions of FIFRA § 25(b). Despite discussions and correspondence between ACM and the EPA, which indicated that ACM's pesticide products were exempt under § 25(b), Rick Reaves pointed out an ambiguity on the labeling of ACM's pesticide products which caused the EPA to issue the stop orders. These stop orders do not preclude ACM from registering the pesticide with the EPA, and then selling the product. 7 . “Under Texas law, an action for money had and received is an equitable doctrine applied to prevent unjust enrichment.” Doss v. Homecoming Financial Network, Inc. 210 S.W.3d 706, 709, n. 4 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2006, pel. denied) (<HOLDING>). 8 . The only valid and enforceable contract 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed (B) holding that although money had and received and unjust enrichment were pled as separate causes of action they are really the same cause of action (C) holding that a preliminary injunction was a reasonable means of preserving the status quo and was of the same character as the ultimate relief sought when a few but not all of the causes of action in the complaint were of an equitable nature including causes of action for unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust (D) holding that antelitem notice statute did not apply to claims for unjust enrichment money had and received and breach of city code because they are not claims for injury to person or property (E) holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment
Output (English): holding that antelitem notice statute did not apply to claims for unjust enrichment money had and received and breach of city code because they are not claims for injury to person or property