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]: 2505. III. DISCUSSION A. No Private Cause of Action Under IGRA As an initial matter, the court dismisses all of plaintiffs claims against all defendants brought pursuant to alleged violations of IGRA. The court, following the majority of courts who have decided the issue, finds that IGRA provides no private right of action against the Tribe, the State, the federal government or any official or agency thereof. See, e.g., Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 63 F.3d 1030, 1049 (11th Cir.1995)(finding plaintiff failed to state a claim against tribe for alleged failure to comply with IGRA’s licensing requirements because no implied cause of action in IGRA); American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 146 F.Supp.2d 1012, 1053 (D.Ariz.2001)(citing 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A))(<HOLDING>); Jimi Dev. Corp. v. Ute Mountain Ute Indian 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no private right of action exists (B) holding that there is no private right of action for any person under  13d (C) holding that the scope of section 541 is broad and includes all kinds of property including causes of action (D) recognizing private right of action (E) holding only three kinds of entities are expressly given causes of action under igraindian tribes states and the united statesand there is no implied private right to enforce igra
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: 393 N.W.2d 286, 290-91 (S.D.1986). • GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, (dissenting).. [¶ 26.] I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the lower court on Issue 2. I would hold the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment to 01-esens, holding City’s operation of food service at the municipal bar was an ultra vires act. [¶27.] An express grant of authority from the legislature “includes those incidental or implied powers that are necessary to enable a municipality to perform the function authorized.” City of Rapid City v. Rensch, 77 S.D. 242, 246, 90 N.W.2d 380, 383 (1958) (citation omitted). A municipality is vested with discretion as to how it exercises specific powers conferred upon it by the legislature, as long as the methods employed are n , 59 N.W.2d 732, 734 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Actions taken under a municipality’s implied 
 Holding statements: (A) holding municipality had implied authority to enter into a long term contract to establish a golf course although state statute did not specifically grant authority to establish golf courses as public parks (B) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (C) holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority (D) holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority (E) holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality
[EX A]: (A)

[EX Q]: motion or for any other calendar setting, shall promptly give no tice advising all other parties who have appeared in the action so that cross motions may, insofar as possible, be heard on a single hearing date. (Emphasis added.) Application of this rule would appear to require that appellant move for a hearing. Additionally, in State v. Due, which also involved the forfeiture of a bail bond, this court noted that no evidentiary hearing was requested, which implied that the appellant was not automatically entitled to a hearing. 427 N.W.2d 276, 277 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28,1988). Moreover, the phrase “shall be heard” does not necessarily mean that a party is entitled to an oral hearing. See, e.g., Sweet v. Comm’r of Human Servs., 702 N.W.2d 314, 321 (Minn.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). And the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure do 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard (B) holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard (C) holding that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard (D) holding that counselors opportunity to submit his written case to the commissioner along with any supporting documents satisfied his right to be heard (E) holding that a predeprivation opportunity to be heard satisfies the due process clause
[EX A]:
(D)