Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): constituting a breach of that duty. The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: the violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action. Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 904, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 443, 51 P.3d 297, 306 (2002) (citations omitted). A party may bring only one cause of action to vindicate a primary right. Id. at 897, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d at 438, 51 P.3d at 302. Claims not raised in this single cause of action may not be raised at a later date. Id. MHC’s claims in federal and state court all involve a single primary right: the right to receive a fair return on its investment at Westwinds. They all stem from a single injury MHC claims to suffer. See Takahashi v. Bd. of Trs., 783 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). MHC’s claims all relate to a single Ordinance 
 Holding statements: (A) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (B) holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court (C) holding the plaintiffs statutory mandamus proceeding in state court barred the plaintiffs constitutional claims in federal court because both actions stemmed from a single primary right the contractual right to employment (D) holding that district court had no jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims that his constitutional rights were violated in state divorce proceeding (E) holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court
Output (English): holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court