Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): determined that Salim lacked standing under the doctrine of third-party standing. See App. 19. It is true, as the bankruptcy court noted, that a plaintiff generally may not establish standing on ng does not undermine the Court’s conclusion that Salim has standing to bring this case. In sum, the Court concludes that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that Sal-im lacks standing. If Salim lacked standing, the Court would not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the parties’ dispute. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003. Since it concludes that Salim does’ have standing to pursue his claims, however, the Court may now consider the bankruptcy court’s determination that Salim failed to state a claim. See, e.g., Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Mera v. City of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice in deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (B) holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial (C) holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm (D) holding that district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim (E) holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
Output (English): holding that the district court erred when it failed to consider the presumption of irreparable harm