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.

Example Input: It is axiomatic, however, that states act through their officials and agencies. Thus, under Will, those state agencies and other political subdivisions which carry out the state’s business and have immunity from lawsuits under the Eleventh Amendment constitute “arms of the state.” Pursuant to Will, such entities would not be considered persons under § 1983. Those political subdivisions which are not provided immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, do not rise to the level of “arms of the state” and would, under Will, be considered to be persons for the purposes of § 1983. See Barket, Levy & Fine v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948 F.2d 1084, 1086-88 (8th Cir.1991) (bi-state agency is a “person” under § 1983); Magula v. Broward Gen. Medical Ctr., 742 F.Supp. 645, 649 (S.D.Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the Will decision was handed down, a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment (B) holding that an ohio school district is more like a county or city than it is like an arm of the state and therefore it is not entitled to assert eleventh amendment immunity from suit (C) holding that the anne arundel board of education is an arm of the state for purposes of eleventh amendment immunity (D) holding that the puc is not an arm of the state and rejecting claim of immunity (E) holding that because hospital district is more like a municipality than an arm of the state hospital district did not have eleventh amendment immunity
Example Output: holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment

Example Input: with the general contractor to provide materials and labor. Decina, 258 Mich App at 422. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 423. Although the subcontractors did not contract with the homeowners directly, they were nevertheless at least initially entitled to a construction lien under the CLA. See MCL 570.1107(1) (“Each.. . subcontractor . .. who provides an improvement to real property has a construction lien upon the interest of the owner or lessee who contracted for the improvement to real property .. ..”). 27 H A Smith Lumber & Hardware Co v Decina (On Remand), 265 Mich App 380, 382; 695 NW2d 347 (2005), rev’d 480 Mich 987 (2007). 28 Id. 29 Id. at 384-385. 30 Decina, 480 Mich at 988. 31 id. 32 Decina, 258 Mich App at 424, 431. 33 See MCL 570.1107(1) and (6); see also Vugterveen, 454 Mich at 129 (<HOLDING>). 34 Decina, 480 Mich at 988. 36 MCL 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that mcl 57011076 provides a real property owner with a defense to a claim of lien if the owner can show that the sum of payments made pursuant to the specific contract plus the claim of lien exceed the price of the contract (B) holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond (C) holding that under nebraskas physicians lien statute a physicians lien could not exceed the amount the health care provider agreed to accept for the services rendered to a patient even if the usual and customary charge for such services is greater than that sum because the statute extends such lien only to the amount due or debt of the patient to the hospital (D) holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner (E) holding a lien is a claim against property  here a surety bond and breach of contract is a claim against a person thus the lien proceeding did not dispose of the breach of contract action
Example Output: holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond

Example Input: the merits, however, we first must assure ourselves of our-jurisdiction in light of changed circumstances. Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[T]he condition of mootness is not a defense that c[an] be waived ... but rather is a condition that deprives the court of subject matter juris* diction.”). Notably, Petitioners’ submission of the discovery in the Monégasque proceeding arguably mooted the question whether the district court erred in granting-discovery as to that proceeding. That development, together with the indefinite stay of the Singaporean litigation, leaves as a live controversy only that portion of the Section 1782 application as applied-to the French proceeding. See Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the pending French 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline (B) holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state (C) holding that the district court was correct in dismissing the section 1782 application as moot because at that time there were no foreign proceedings within the meaning of the statute in which the discovery could be used (D) holding that a statutory amendment characterized by the state as a clarification could not be applied retroactively because the statute as written at the time of the crime was unclear and retroactive application of the statute as amended would result in an increased period of incarceration (E) holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute
Example Output:
holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline