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:
who have not returned their consents 30 days from the date notice is mailed as unnecessary. Plaintiff replies that reminder notice is necessary because potential class members work in remote locations far away from their homes for long periods of time. Plaintiff argues that reminder notice affects the broad remedial purposes of the FLSA and ensures that potential class members receive notice of their rights and potential claims. District courts are split as to whether reminder notices to potential class members are proper in FLSA actions. See Santinac v. Worldwide Labor Support of Illinois, Inc., 107 F.Supp.3d 610, 618-19, 2015 WL 3486971, *6 (S.D.Miss. June 2, 2015) (citing Garcia v. TWC Administration, LLC, Civil Action No. SA: 14-CV-985-DAE, 2015 WL 1737932 (W.D.Tex, April 16, 2015) (<HOLDING>)). Courts that have denied requests for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts (B) recognizing that uniformity has at its heart the equalization of the ratio among all properties in the district (C) holding that a district courts findings under rule 52a are to be liberally construed in support of the district courts judgment (D) recognizing split among district courts (E) recognizing district courts discretion to consider pending state charge in determining sentence

Ex Output:
holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts


Ex Input:
claim because "she was not diligent in preserving her legal rights”); Felty, 818 F.2d at 1129 ("One who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence.”) (quoting Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)); United States ex rel. Cogifer, S.A. v. Ins. Co. of North Am., Civ. A. No. 86-183-NN, 1987 WL 19932, at *4 (E.D.Va. Oct. 15, 1987) (unpublished). 11 . See, e.g., Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450-51 (7th Cir. 1990). 12 . See, e.g., Humble Oil, 402 F.2d at 896 (finding equitable estoppel where surety reneged on promise to pay after statute of limitations had run). 13 . See, e.g., United States ex rel. Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 436 F.2d 1366, 1371 (10th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Atlas Erection Co. v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation (B) holding that an agreement which required the submission of an affidavit of payment to subcontractors or lien waivers before payment was made by the general contractor was for the direct benefit of the subcontractors (C) holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors (D) holding that estoppel applied where surety repeatedly responded to subcontractors threats to sue with answers which assured them that amicable settlement was just around the corner (E) holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety

Ex Output:
holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation


Ex Input:
the issue, and whether the issue was proffered by one and controverted by another. See Gies v. Nissen Corp., 57 Wis.2d 371, 204 N.W.2d 519, 525 (1973). The Wisconsin Supreme Court considers an issue to be “joined” between the parties when one party has served a formal pleading asking for relief against the other party. See id. (first co-defendant who served cross-claim for contribution on second co-defendant had joined the issue of their respective liability to the plaintiff; thus, first co-defendant was bound by judgment in that action, which dismissed second co-defendant). The formal-pleading requirement serves to ensure that the parties joined the issue between them by requesting relief, and that either party can enforce such requested relief. See, e.g., Goldblatt, 417 N.W.2d at 419 (<HOLDING>). The Streitzes and Marshall were not formal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim preclusion did not bar fire insurer from bringing a second action against its coplaintiff in first action (B) holding claim preclusion did not foreclose plaintiffs second action even though it arose out of the same lease agreement as that of a prior action (C) holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second (D) holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state (E) holding res judicata precluded landlord from bringing second action for damages of unpaid future rents after a final judgment determined tenants damages arising out of the breach of lease in landlords first action

Ex Output:

holding claim preclusion did not foreclose plaintiffs second action even though it arose out of the same lease agreement as that of a prior action