Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 15.7(a)’s general grant of authority, skirts the more stringent requirements of the contempt remedy authorized by Rule 15.7(a)(3). ¶ 51 Neither can the majority’s holding be explained as an exercise of its inherent authority apart from Rule 15.7. In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 257-58, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the United States Supreme Court affirmed the continuing vitality of the “American Rule” that requires each party to bear the cost of its own attorneys’ fees absent express statutory authority except in the following exceptional circumstances: (1) the common fund doctrine applies; (2) a party willfully disobeys a court order; or (3) a party acts in bad faith. See also Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 1473, 1482 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). ¶ 52 Similarly, in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that absent explicit congressional authorization the factual prerequisites of bad faith misconduct or willful disobedience laid out in alyeska must be met (B) holding that a bad faith claim is a tort (C) holding that remedial scheme afforded by federal tort claims act was not exclusive absent explicit congressional declaration that it was (D) holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard (E) holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute
Output (English): holding that remedial scheme afforded by federal tort claims act was not exclusive absent explicit congressional declaration that it was