TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: to allege damages through June 30, 2006 is the focus of their motion.”). Because the Government does not oppose Plaintiff supplementing the September 4, 2009 Complaint to seek damages through the end of 2009, the issue before the court is whether Plaintiff may supplement to allege a claim for damages incurred through December 31, 2009, or through December 31, 2010. See System Fuels, 73 Fed.Cl. at 211 (“Supplementation may be limited or curtailed to avoid prejudice.” (citation omitted)). Although Plaintiff may have given the Government an estimate of 2010 damages as early as July 2010, Plaintiff did not identify the specific 2010 damages claimed or provide the Government with supporting documentation of those damages until April 20, 2011 — t 4 Fed.Cl. 727 (2006) (“SMUD III") (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 293 Fed.Appx. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding (B) holding that smud was entitled to 39796234 in damages (C) holding that a plaintiff is entitled to either statutory treble damages or punitive damages whichever is the greater (D) holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them (E) holding that smud was entitled to mitigation damages for costs incurred from may 15 1997 to december 31 2003

SOLUTION: holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding

PROBLEM: the report and recommendation did not notify the parties that they must file timely objections to preserve their right to appellate review. He argues that the firm waiver rule should not be enforced in the absence of such an explicit notification. While we have held that the firm waiver rule is inapplicable when pro se litigants are not given explicit notice of the rule, see id. at 659, we have never extended that practice to counseled cases. We decline to do so today, because we expect counsel to know the rules. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 n. 5 (10th Cir.2007) (“[W]e expect counsel to know the pleading rules of the road without being given personal notice of them by the district court.”); United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1157 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). While 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules (B) holding that a criminal defendants counsel is charged with knowledge of the local criminal rules in their entirety including those parts of the local civil rules incorporated by reference (C) holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its own local rules even though those rules prevented it from considering some facts improperly alleged by plaintiffs that might have been relevant to the summary judgment motion (D) holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery (E) holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings

SOLUTION: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules

PROBLEM: 941, 944 (1937); Meunier v. Bernich, 170 So. 567, 572 (La.Ct.App.1936); Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 911 (1934); Akron Bar Ass’n v. Bojonell, 88 Ohio St.3d 154, 724 N.E.2d 401, 402 (2000); Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 N.E.2d 243, 244 (1998); Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d at 234; Brown v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 742 S.W.2d 34, 42 (Tex.Ct.App.1987); accord 16 John A. Appleman and Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice § 8649, at 137 (1981) (“generally the courts have held that if a lay adjuster attempts to handle claims on behalf of plaintiffs, or to effect settlements for them, even though litigation is not required, such amounts to the practice of law”); cf. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Jansen, 816 S.W.2d 813, 814-16 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning of these courts is helpful in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that public insurance adjusters were not engaged in the practice of law when they merely documented and presented firstparty claims for property damage to insurance compa nies even though they discussed the competing valuations with the inhouse insurance adjuster the court distinguished these activities from the evaluation and presentation of personal injury claims and from the negotiation of settlements (B) holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate (C) holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim (D) holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies (E) holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims

SOLUTION:
holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate