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.

[Q]: to allege damages through June 30, 2006 is the focus of their motion.”). Because the Government does not oppose Plaintiff supplementing the September 4, 2009 Complaint to seek damages through the end of 2009, the issue before the court is whether Plaintiff may supplement to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009, or through December 31, 2010. See System Fuels, 73 Fed.Cl. at 211 (“Supplementation may be limited or curtailed to avoid prejudice.” (citation omitted)). Although Plaintiff may have given the Government an estimate of 2010 damages as early as July 2010, Plaintiff did not identify the specific 2010 damages claimed or provide the Government with supporting documentation of those damages until April 20, 2011 — t 4 Fed.Cl. 727 (2006) (“SMUD III") (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 293 Fed.Appx. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding (B) holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages (C) holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater (D) holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them (E) holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003
[A]: holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding


[Q]: merits of a plaintiffs cause of action ... also implicate the class certification decision,” Jackson v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth, 260 F.R.D. 168, 184 (E.D.Pa.2009), such an inquiry is merely preliminary. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317. A plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the merits of its claims at the class certification stage, and any inquiry into the merits that is not necessary to a Rule 23 decision is precluded. Jackson, 260 F.R.D. at 184 (citing Newton, 259 F.3d at 166-67, and Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317-18). However, the movant must do more than “assur[e] ... the court that it intends or plans to meet the requirements” of Rule 23. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 318; see also Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 453 F.3d 179, 186 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As with other matters relating to Rule 23 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right (B) holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity (C) holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right (D) holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right (E) holding that there must be full and clear articulation of the litigations contours at the time of class certification
[A]: holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right


[Q]: were all based on these claims and are now mooted. 53 . Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 45 P.3d 657, 671 (Alaska 2002). 54 . Thompson's Estate v. Mercedes-Benz, Inc., 514 P.2d 1269, 1271 (Alaska 1973). 55 . 3 Jamrs Wa Moore, Feperat Practice § 15.14[1] (3d ed.2003). 56 . 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 LEd.2d 222 (1962). 57 . Betz v. Chena Hot Springs Group, 742 P.2d 1346, 1348 (Alaska 1987) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227). 58 . Thompson's Estate, 514 P.2d at 1271. 59 . Betz, 742 P.2d at 1348. 60 . Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court, 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 261 Cal.Rptr. 857, 859-60 (1989) (citing Higgins v. Del Faro, 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 176 Cal.Rptr. 704 (1981)); see also Smith v. Costa Lines, Inc., 97 F.R.D. 451, 453 (N.D.Cal.1983) (<HOLDING>); Karn v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife (B) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay (D) holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (E) holding that it may be held an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave unless there is a demonstrable showing of prejudice to an opposing party
[A]:
holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife