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 Input:
other non-Virginia cases offer a compelling basis for adopting the per se rule Allied has proposed. In National City Bank v. Fleming, 2 Ohio App.3d 50, 440 N.E.2d 590, 599 (1981), for instance, the court said: It has long been the law of equity that a person who confers a benefit either directly or indirectly upon another in the course of performance of a contract with a third person is not entitled to compensation ... merely because of the failure of performance by the third party. However, where it appears from all the facts that the conferral of such benefit was the product of fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith by the party accepting and retaining such benefit, equity will imply an obligation to make payment therefor. See Costanzo v. Stewart, 9 Ariz.App. 430, 453 P.2d 526 (1969) (<HOLDING>), (emphasis added) (some citations omitted). 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary (B) holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply (C) holding that a duty may be owed to a beneficiary of a consensual relationship akin to that of a thirdparty beneficiary of a contract where the professional has actual knowledge that the services being provided are in part for the benefit of such third persons (D) holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit (E) holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) (‘We do not ... believe § 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim.” (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng’rs, Inc. v. Lafourche 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that  1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
Frank McLain and Harley McLain appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. Because plaintiffs reside in Montana and North Dakota but did not allege a concrete harm caused by the out-of-state defendants, the district court properly dismissed these claims for lack of standing. See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance (B) holding that a borrower lacks standing to challenge transfers of her promissory note to which the borrower is not a party (C) holding that a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge legislation created outside of plaintiffs district absent specific evidence of personal harm (D) holding that a party lacks standing to challenge the validity of a deed issued by a county treasurer in the absence of actual injury to a legally protected interest (E) holding that a claimant without an interest in a particular specific asset lacks standing to initiate ancillary proceeding

Ex Output:

(C)