Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the federal defendants. DISCUSSION Appellants argue that the Forest Service lacked the authority to restrict the use of the ditches to maintain instream flow levels for the protection of fish under the ESA. We agree with the district court that the placement of restrictions in the right-of-way permits was within the authority of the Forest Service. Whatever questions exist as to the standing of the various appellants, they are represented by the same counsel and make the same arguments, and the Early Winters Ditch Company as a permit holder indisputably has standing. We accordingly proceed to the merits. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263-64 & n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (<HOLDING>). At bottom, appellants argue that the Forest 
 Holding statements: (A) holding individual standing issue waived (B) holding that standing existed (C) holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit (D) holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they may not rely on the expense of credit monitoring and other preventative measures for standing (E) recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they may not rely on the expense of credit monitoring and other preventative measures for standing