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.

[Q]: sophisticated consumer” might well reach the same conclusion. In sum, particularly at this early stage, defendants cannot establish as a matter of law that Santander is a creditor exempt from the FDCPA. Thus, the motion to dismiss should be denied. TCPA Claims Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under the TCPA based on an exception contained in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2), which excepts calls to a residential line when made pursuant to an “established business relationship.” It is difficult to imagine how that exemption would apply to Letricia Hamlett, who was not a signatory to the loan, but in fairness there is at least one case that supports this odd interpretation of the law. See Santino v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., No. 09-CV-982, 2011 WL 754874, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011) (<HOLDING>); but see Watson v. NCO Group, Inc., 462 
 Holding statements: (A) holding  2254 applies to administrative proceedings (B) holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action (C) holding exemption applies to nondebtor (D) holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action (E) holding that  1447c applies to counsel
[A]: (C)


[Q]: of Liability Provisions SBVS argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to lost rent or diminution in value damages because both of the Agreements contain provisions barring the award of consequential damages. The Court concludes that the enforceability of these provisions turns on disputed facts and, therefore, that summary judgment on this issue is improper. Generally, provisions limiting liability in construction contracts are enforceable under California law so long as the parties negotiated and expressly agreed to the limitations. See Cal. Civ.Code § 2782.5. However, such a provision is unenforceable if it is unconscionable or otherwise contrary to public policy. Markborough California, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Riverside County, 227 Cal.App.3d 705, 715, 277 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Under § 1668 of the California Civil Code, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs who had been served and received responses to interrogatories on personal jurisdiction had had such a fair opportunity (B) holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant (C) holding contract not unconscionable where parties were of equal bargaining power plaintiff had opportunity to have an attorney review the contract the contract was clear and easily read the plaintiff had been a party to similar contracts in the past and was under no financial pressure to sign the con tract (D) holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract (E) holding that limitation of liability clause in construction contract that is not unconscionable or in violation of public policy is valid so long as parties had a fair opportunity to accept reject or modify limitation and affirming summary judgment on basis that plaintiff had presented no evidence that it had had no such opportunity
[A]: (E)


[Q]: of attempted murder: 1) a person, 2) with the specific intent to cause the death of another, 3) does an act amounting to more than mere preparation, 4) but fails to effect the death of the other individual. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 15.01(a); 19.02(b); Jeffley, 938 S.W.2d at 517; Palomo, 925 S.W.2d at 332. The charge given to the jury did not expressly include the words “attempt to cause the death” of Williams. However, the word “attempt” was not required because the entire paragraph is a description of the elements of “attempt.” The language “with the intent to commit the murder of Alberta Williams” was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the charge include the culpable mental state of the attempted felony. See, e.g., Ex parte Bartmess, 739 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tex.Crim. App.1987) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, we find no error in the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument (B) holding under section 1902a1 specific intent required as an element of section 1501 is the intent to cause the death of an individual (C) holding that specific intent is an element of attempted illegal reentry (D) holding defendant must act with specific intent to cause death of another in order to be convicted of attempted murder (E) holding intent as an essential element to an invasion of privacy by intrusion and not listing intent as a required element of invasion of privacy by publication
[A]:
(B)