Task: Text Completion
Input (English): tire wear to plaintiffs’ CLRA claim. As noted, the defect plaintiffs allege is a design specification that requires the back tires of each class vehicle to have 1.5 degrees of negative camber (within certain design tolerances). There is no dispute that this specification is common to the entire class of vehicles. Plaintiffs are thus correct that defendants repeatedly “confuse!] the defect at issue ... with the consequences of that defect, which include!] premature or uneven tire wear.” The Ninth Circuit disfavors this type of mingling of issues, and requires that courts accept plaintiffs’ theory of relief as it is stated. See United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Service Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. ConocoPhillips Co., 593 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). !27] Nonetheless, whether class vehicles are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court was incorrect to treat  plaintiffs actual legal theory as all but beside the point because it questioned their ability to prove that theory and was concerned about the individualized inquiries that would result if they failed (B) holding a complaint sufficiently raises a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to the wrong legal theory as a basis for that claim (C) holding that the failure to draw the district courts attention to an applicable legal theory waives pursuit of that theory in this court (D) holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory (E) holding that if basis described the parties were therefore aware of plaintiffs legal theory even where the theory was mischaracterized citation omitted
Output (English): (A)