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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[EX Q]: (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>).' Amara’s remaining contentions are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice (B) recognizing that dismissal may be proper where plaintiff concedes the failure to exhaust (C) holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice (D) holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking (E) holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: Defendants’ Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 22 (“Plaintiffs appear to be claiming that they are entitled to ‘Class of One’ review[.]”)) Furthermore, County Defendants did not explicitly address the appeal issue anywhere in their motion. Given this background, it was not error for the Court to ascribe the “class of one” argument to Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge, nor was it error for the Court to find that County Defendants had not met their burden on the question of summary judgment. To the extent that County Defendants now contend that Plaintiffs “class of one” argument must fail because no other party has appealed for a waiver, this is a new argument that is not appropriate in a motion for reconsideration. See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D.Haw.2005) (<HOLDING>). Should County Defendants wish to re-visit 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal (B) holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions (C) holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally (D) holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision (E) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration
[EX A]: (D)

[EX Q]: under the state constitution are typically subject to rational basis review). 19 . As far as I can tell, no other court has held that such laws exceed a state’s police power. When restrictions on the sale of alcohol have been struck down, it has generally been on some other discrete constitutional or statutory ground. See, e.g., Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 276, 104 S.Ct. 3049, 82 L.Ed.2d 200 (1984) (declaring a state law taxing certain alcoholic beverages produced in-state differently from beverages produced out-of-state to be violative of the Commerce Clause and noting that the state justified the law solely on the basis of promoting the local beverage industry); Rice v. Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals Bd., 21 Cal.3d 431, 146 Cal.Rptr. 585, 579 P.2d 476, 494-95 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 20 . "The privileges and immunities of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that official proponents of californias proposition 8 lacked article iii standing in federal court (B) holding cercla does not preempt californias corporate capacity statute (C) holding that californias liquor pricefixing statute violated federal antitrust law (D) holding that californias antislapp statute is applicable in federal court (E) holding claim that prior conviction was not serious felony under californias sentencing law not cognizable in federal habeas proceeding
[EX A]:
(C)