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.

issue, we need not consider the second argument raised. 7 . In a dissent to Smith, Judge Friedman, joined by Judges Pellegrini and Kelley, objected to following the Miller/Lewis/Selan line of cases which automatically equated the refusal to sign a hospital consent form with a refusal to submit to chemical testing. The dissenting judges expressed preference for the other line of caselaw, particularly Conrad, and noted that because Smith orally agreed to the blood test and only refused to sign the hospital consent form, which was a pre-test procedure linked to the test, although not required by section 1547, Smith did not make a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing. 8 . Wheatley v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 171, 521 A.2d 507 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 9 Although Renwick does not expressly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 (B) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (C) holding that refusal to submit to breathalyzer test did not result from custodial interrogation (D) holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 (E) holding that a district court did not clearly err in crediting agents testimony that a defendant had orally consented despite his refusal to sign consent form
holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547

improperly removed the action as there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy fails to meet the $75,000 threshold. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of “compensatory, special and general damages in an amount according to proof at trial, but not less than $1,000,000.” (Dkt. No., Ex. A.) Plaintiff further states that the amount of the Note on the property in question is $440,000 (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. The question before the Court is whether, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Wells Fargo is also a citizen of California. See, e.g., Uriarte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127497 at *9, 2011 WL 5295285 at *2-3 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 3, 2011) (<HOLDING>). But see Flores v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2012 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count (B) holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center (C) holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes (D) holding that wells fargo is also a citizen of california where it has its principal place of business (E) holding that for diversity purposes a national bank is  a citizen of  the state of its principal place of business and the state listed in its organizational certificate
holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count

achieved dismissal of 59% of the Plaintiffs’ causes of action, the Court finds that McKool Smith is only entitled to that same percentage of the fees requested in the Fee Statements. See Roussell v. Brinker Int’l, Inc., No. H-05-3733, 2010 WL 1881898, at *3 (S.D.Tex. Jan.13, 2010) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933) (noting that the most important of the Johnson factors to be considered in adjustments to the lodestar fee is “overall degree of success achieved”); Arnold, 2000 WL 354395, at *7-8 (citing Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 320 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 991, 114 S.Ct. 548, 126 L.Ed.2d 450 (1993)) (considering the results obtained in making a downward adjustment to the lodestar fee); Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1048 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court reduces the lodestar 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that deficiencies in a fee application justified a fortyfive percent reduction in the allowable fees (B) holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to award attorneys fees based on the objective unreasonableness of plaintiffs complaint (C) holding that the court has discretion to double check the reasonableness of the percentage fee through a lodestar calculation (D) holding that even after a ten percent reduction to the lodestar fee the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider the result obtained relative to the attorneys fees requested (E) holding that under  1988 consideration of the results obtained relative to the relief requested is required

holding that deficiencies in a fee application justified a fortyfive percent reduction in the allowable fees