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]: purchases of EZ Seed.” (Weir Decl., Doc. #80). This model rests on the assumption that plaintiffs received no benefit whatsoever from purchasing EZ Seed. See, e.g., Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, 2014 WL 2466559, at *15 (noting a full refund model is based on the assumption that consumers received no benefit from the product). This model matches plaintiffs’ first theory of liability—that EZ Seed does not grow grass, and is thus valueless. If plaintiffs prove EZ Seed suffered from a defect that rendered the product completely ineffective, plaintiffs would be entitled to all of their money back. The full compensatory damages model satisfies Comcast because it measures damages properly if EZ Seed is valueless. See, e.g., Allen v. Hyland’s Inc., 300 F.R.D. 643, 671 (C.D.Cal.2014) (<HOLDING>); Ortega v. Natural Balance, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source (B) holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case (C) holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists (D) holding full restitution theory satisfies comcast when plaintiffs theory of liability is that the products are entirely ineffective (E) holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory
[A]: (D)


[Q]: its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings.” Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). A properly filed application is “one submitted ac cording to the state’s procedural requirements, such as the rules governing the time and place of filing.” Lovasz v. Vaughn, 134 F.3d 146, 148 (3d Cir.1998). As described above, Petitioner initiated several state postconviction proceedings which, if properly filed, could toll the one-year period of limitation. The first of these was a motion for reduction of sentence filed and denied on October 8, 1996. This motion was pending until November 7, 1996, when the thirty-day period for filing a timely appeal expired. See Swartz v. Meyers, 204 F.3d 417, 422 (3d Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). The Court finds that the one-year period of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for purposes of  2255 motions a federal criminal judgment becomes final when the time for filing a direct appeal expires (B) holding that a postconviction proceeding is pending under  2244d2 until the time to appeal expires (C) holding that time limit for initiating a tax appeal under kansas jurisdictional statute was a limitation  upon the right itself so that when time expires the right to bring such an action is extinguished (D) holding that postconviction proceeding is a civil suit (E) holding that the other collateral review provision of  2244d2 encompasses federal review
[A]: (B)


[Q]: employee’s consent to enter the special employment relationship. Those courts have not, however, considered whether the employee must know the corporate identity of the special employer for whom she agreed to work or whether her consent to work for a borrowing entity is tantamount to consent to work for the corporate entity of which the borrower is a part. Rather, the cases have analyzed only whether the employee agreed to work for an entity other than the general employer, an issue that is undisputed in this ease. See Pacenti v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 245 N.J.Super. 188, 584 A.2d 843, 845 (App.Div.1991) (inferring requisite consent from the employee’s reporting to borrower’s place of business and accepting its supervisors’ decisions, policies and training); Murin, 573 A.2d at 991-94 (<HOLDING>); Chickachop v. Manpower, Inc., 84 N.J.Super. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that existence of deliberate and informed consent turns on whether it is understood between the employee and his employers that he is to remain in the allegiance of the first employer  or is to be employed in the business and subject to the direction of the temporary employer (B) holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration (C) holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated  to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name (D) holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation (E) holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work
[A]:
(A)