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.

Input: Consider Input: subpoena does not fit within the statutory language. The question surrounding the subpoena’s validity in no way relates to any information that Star Bank would be required to disclose under FCRA, even assuming that FCRA’s requirements apply to Star Bank. {See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) for the definition of a “consumer reporting agency.”) The Hahns’ claimed reliance on whatever Bonynge said regarding the subpoena therefore provides them with no basis to toll the two year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Hahns have failed to demonstrate that the wilful misrepresentation tolling exception applies to their case. We therefore hold that all of their claims raised under FCRA are barred by the statute of limitations. See Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1181 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We find no inequity in reaching this result. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim (B) holding that equitable tolling is available to avoid time limitations in the statutory provisions governing veterans benefits (C) holding that parents were not entitled to use infancy tolling provisions and that the statute of limitations barred their claims (D) holding that an ohio tolling statute violated the commerce clause because it gave nonresident corporations the choice between being subject to general jurisdiction in the state by appointing an instate agent for service of process or being subject to a tolling of the statute of limitations on claims against them (E) holding that a plaintiff must fit within the precise wording of the tolling exception to avoid being barred by fcras statute of limitations provision

Output: holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim


Input: Consider Input: of two dates between Ms. Jonasson and Kingsboro in 1988. In its view, the evidence was irrelevant and inflammatory. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion in limine with respect to this evidence. The court believed that the evidence was relevant and ought to be before the jury because it had the task of evaluating the overall relationship of Ms. Jonasson and Kingsboro. Evidence that is relevant to the background of the case is admissible for that purpose. At the very least, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court not to exclude this evidence in a motion in limine; the evidence was at least potentially relevant for the purpose the judge identified. See Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc., 69 F.3d 1344 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). LCFS did not object during the trial when Ms. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress intended the courts to apply the civil rights act of 1991 to cases pending at the time of its enactment and to preact conduct still open to challenge after that time (B) holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment (C) holding that conduct prior to passage of the civil rights act of 1991 is admissible to provide context and background (D) holding that section 102 of the civil rights act of 1991 does not apply to preenactment conduct (E) holding that the  1981 amendments contained in  101 of the civil rights act of 1991 do not apply retroactively

Output: holding that congress intended the courts to apply the civil rights act of 1991 to cases pending at the time of its enactment and to preact conduct still open to challenge after that time


Input: Consider Input: is uncertain whether Mr. Porcaro is actually dead. Great Southern presented deposition evidence from which a jury could reasonably determine that Mr. Porcaro may have fled to avoid prosecution and, thus, still be alive. Furthermore, the probate court’s ruling does not constitute prima facie evidence of Mr. Porcaro’s death. While a death certificate obtained through probate proceedings provides some evidence of death, death certificates no longer have prima facie evidentiary value outside the context of probate proceedings. See Ch. 97-287, § 106, at 4169, Laws of Fla. (eliminating provision in section 382.025(5), Florida Statutes, that provided for such prima facie evidentiary value in “all courts and cases”); Branca by Branca v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 773 F.2d 1158 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the burden was on Mrs. Porcaro to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff must merely make out a prima facie case to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where there has been no evidentiary hearing (B) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review (C) recognizing confusion caused by prima facie language (D) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (E) holding section 731103 florida statutes providing for prima facie evidentiary value upon the presentation of enumerated evidence of death applies only in probate proceedings


Output: holding that a plaintiff must merely make out a prima facie case to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where there has been no evidentiary hearing