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: in favor of William Spencer, et al., (Spencer) and setting the penalties for violation of the California False Claims Act (CFCA). Spencer cross-appeals the denial of post-trial motions and refusal to award attorney’s fees. We affirm on all grounds. I BART’s unjust enrichment claim fads for want of a loss. Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank, 77 Cal.App.4th 723, 726, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 881 (2000) (noting that the elements of unjust enrichment are “receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another.”). Even assuming that County of San Bernardino v. Walsh, 158 Cal.App.4th 533, 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 848 (2008), recognized an exception to this rule, BART’s claim does not fall into that exception. See Peterson v. Cellico P’ship, 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1594, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 316 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Concrete financial loss is required for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding preemption is appropriate where unjust enrichment claim does not allege that the defendants were enriched by anything other than copyright infringement (B) holding that walsh does not support plaintiffs assertion that they need not allege any actual injury to bring an unjust enrichment claim (C) holding that where plaintiffs filed a complaint for conversion unjust enrichment and injunctive relief they had an adequate remedy at law (D) holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment (E) holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed

A: holding preemption is appropriate where unjust enrichment claim does not allege that the defendants were enriched by anything other than copyright infringement
****
Q: of benefits in 1989 established a "pattern” of benefit increases such that the Plan's later rescission of the 1999 Benefits Increase, which was adopted ten years after the 1989 increase, violated the anti-cutback rule. We find this argument to be without merit as a matter of law. 18 . Thornton also alleges that the Board breached its fiduciary duty by favoring one class of Plan participants over another class, specifically by eliminating the 1999 Benefits Increase for pre-February 1, 1999 retirees while maintaining it for Plan participants retiring on or after that date. Thornton waived this argument on appeal, however, by waiting until his reply brief to address the issue, rather than raising it first in his opening brief. United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1191 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 19 . 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) states in relevant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited (B) holding that an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is waived (C) holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived (D) holding issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before this court (E) holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court

A: holding that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are forfeited
****
Q: typographical error problem addressed in Greenstreet v. State, 392 Md. 652, 898 A.2d 961, (2006). In that case, the Court held that a police officer could not testify that the date in the affidavit in support of search warrant was a typographical error—that instead of "4-14-03," it should have been "4-14-04.” The Court reasoned that permitting such testimony would allow the officer to controvert his statement of the date in the affidavit, in “violation of the four corners rule and the purpose for its existence.” Id. at 671, 898 A.2d 961. Here, the words "premise” and "premises” both are used in the application and warrant, and therefore we properly may infer that one word ("premise”) is a mistaken use or spelling of the other word ("premises”). Greenstreet, supra, at 672, 898 A.2d 961 (<HOLDING>). 4 . The McTyre case has been distinguished on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit (B) recognizing cases from other jurisdictions that stand for the proposition that where a factual date in the affidavit material to the probable cause finding is an apparent typographical error because it is contradicted by another factual time or date more likely to be true also contained within the four comers of the affidavit then a reviewing court may infer that a typographical error was made by the affiant and treat it as something other than what was written in the affidavit (C) holding that the presence of the correct address in the sworn affidavit could correct a typographical error in the warrant (D) holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith (E) holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies

A:
holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit
****