Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 977. Thus, in order to establish causation and redressability, plaintiffs in this case need demonstrate only that consideration of Medi-Cal providers' costs in relation to equal access to quality services could influence the reimbursement rates the State ultimately sets. 7 .The Supreme Court has in the past recognized a lack of incentive in the form of "practical barriers to suit" because of "the small financial stake involved and the economic burdens of litigation” as an obstacle sufficient for third-party standing purposes. Powers, 499 U.S. at 414-415, 111 S.Ct. 1364. Defendant points out that the Ninth Circuit has held that "[a] simple lack of motivation does not constitute a 'genuine obstacle' to asserting an interest.” Viceroy Gold Corp. v. Aubry, 75 F.3d 482, 489 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). There seems to be some tension between Powers 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was not able to demonstrate how its economic interests fell within the zone of interests protected by the nhpa (B) holding employees not entitled to dismissal pursuant to section 101106f where employees failed to present the trial court with a sufficient record to satisfy their burden (C) holding that an employer does not have thirdparty standing to challenge a labor statute on its employees behalf simply because the employees probably would not be motivated to assert their own interests because they lack a sufficient individual economic stake in the outcome (D) holding that representation by state officials that they have no present plan to enforce a statute does not divest plaintiffs of standing to challenge the statute because the states position could well change (E) holding that probation department employees are not county employees
Output (English): holding that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was not able to demonstrate how its economic interests fell within the zone of interests protected by the nhpa