In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Ex Input:
task of resolving the dispute over the meaning of [a statute] ... begins where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself.”). Section 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) states in part that “attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living ... justifies a higher fee.” (emphasis added). On its face, § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) generally references “the cost of living” not a local/regional cost-of-living. Id. (emphasis added). See Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (“[CJourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.”) (citations omitted). Cf. Jones v. Espy, 10 F.3d 690, 692 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). This choice of language 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that legal services attorney lacked standing to challenge state court judges alleged retaliation against clients represented by legal services for using legal services relying upon article iii and younger comity (B) holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority (C) holding that the more general cpiu for all items applied because if congress had meant to permit upward adjustments based on the increased cost of legal services it would have done so with greater specificity and clarity (D) holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 (E) holding that based on the statutes purpose and its legislative history the legislature would have included specific language regarding drug rehabilitation if it had meant to include it

Ex Output:
holding that legal services attorney lacked standing to challenge state court judges alleged retaliation against clients represented by legal services for using legal services relying upon article iii and younger comity


Ex Input:
is tied to the challenged retaliatory act, not the' underlying conduct that forms the basis of the Title VII complaint”). 1. Basic Contributor Rating LMC does not dispute that a basic contributor rating is an adverse employment action and that the action took place after Dr. Chawla’s August 2, 2011 and September 22, 2011 complaints. On September. 29, 2011, Mr. Hooker was notified that he was the subject of an investigation of Dr. Chawla’s complaints. Docket No. 37-2 at 5. However, Dr. Chawla does not contest that Mr. Nichols had a role in assigning the basic contributor rating and identified no specific facts upon which to conclude that Mr. Nichols was aware of Dr. Chawla’s prior complaints of discrimi nation. See Hinds v. Sprint/United Mgm’t Co., 523 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Chawla also does not attack the stated 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in order to show a causal connection plaintiff must present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that those who decided to fire him had knowledge of his protected activity (B) holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity (C) holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury (D) holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity (E) holding that in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection

Ex Output:
holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity


Ex Input:
that the trial court could properly conclude that “there was no showing of uniform conduct likely to mislead the entire jury is not required for non-representative class members, the issues of reliance and injury do not foreclose Plaintiff Brown’s UCL class action. See, e.g., Yamada v. Nobel Biocare Holding AG, 275 F.R.D. 573, 578 (C.D.Cal.2011) (“The ... the alleged omissions and affirmative misrepresentations were consistently made and are therefore common to all members of the putative class.”); Wiener v. Dannon Co., 255 F.R.D. 658, 669 (C.D.Cal.2009) (“For a class action, an inference of reliance arises as to the entire class only if the material misrepresentations were made to all class members.”); Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 238 F.R.D. 482, 492 (C.D.Cal.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiff Brown may prove with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation (B) holding that a person cannot reasonably rely on a misrepresentation when the contents of a written instrument contradict the alleged misrepresentation (C) holding inference appropriate where no rational class member would have acted if there had been adequate disclosure (D) holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action (E) holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation

Ex Output:

holding that a person cannot reasonably rely on a misrepresentation when the contents of a written instrument contradict the alleged misrepresentation