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. 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.
PROBLEM: removal purposes. Instead, for complete preemption to apply, the cause of action not only must be preempted by ERISA but also must fall within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of ERISA 502(a), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a). See Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 209, 124 S.Ct. 2488 ("[A]ny state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore preempted. The preemptive force of ERISA 502(a) is still stronger.... Hence, causes of action within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of 502(a) [are] removable to federal court." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Metro. Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 62-63, 67, 107 S.Ct. 1542 (<HOLDING>); Da-Ponte v. Manfredi Motors Inc., 157 Fed.
Holding statements: (A) holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under 1132a1b (B) holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself (C) holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under 502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan (D) holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court (E) holding that suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan falls directly under 502a1b of erisa and therefore was necessarily federal in character and subject to removal to federal court

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: includes a determination of the significance, if any, of the TNRC's involvement. When the EPA in 1990 shifted from a "strict" to "substantial compliance" standard for private parties, it did so "to encourage private parties to perform voluntary cleanups of sites, and to remove unnecessary obstacles to their ability to recover their costs from the parties that are liable for the contamination." 55 FecLReg. at 8792-93. The EPA expressly recognized that requiring private parties to adhere to a set of mechanical rules would impede this objective. Thus the list of public comment provisions identified in 40 C.F.R. 300.700(c)(6) is only a "universe of requirements which are potentially relevant," and should "not be c Ry. Co. v. Gee Co., 2002 WL 31163777, at *30 (N.D.Ill. Sept.30, 2002) (<HOLDING>); AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Amcast Int'l Corp., 177
Holding statements: (A) holding that government involvement must be accompanied by public comment because a purpose of ncp is to ensure that those responsible for the cleanup receive citizens input regarding environmental conditions in the community (B) holding that public participation requirement was satisfied in part because the ncp policy is to allow potentially responsible parties an opportunity to comment before costs are incurred and no prps were denied an opportunity to comment (C) holding five day public comment period on a portion of an ea insufficient remanding for further public comment (D) holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail (E) holding that meetings with representatives of various affected parties were insufficient to meet public participation requirement because there was never an opportunity for the public at large to comment on the plan without explaining why such opportunity was necessary

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: who arranged for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances at the facility, and to transporters of hazardous wastes to the facility. 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3)-(4). 8 . The RAP for the site prepared by Neville also supplies indisputable evidence of the presence of hazardous substances at the Ne-ville facility. See Jeche Deck, Ex. A at 35-49. 9 . Neville also attempts to raise DTSC's alleged arbitrary and capricious conduct as a defense to liability. However, this is a misapplication of the' arbitrary and capricious conduct standard, which is employed to measure the consistency of particular cleanup actions with the NCP, and therefore goes to the question of what costs the government is entitled to recover as damages rather than to the question of liability. See WSDOT, 59 F.3d at 798 (<HOLDING>). 10 . The evidence presented by the parties in
Holding statements: (A) holding that wsdot was not entitled to recover response costs under cercla where its actions in connection with an environmental cleanup were inconsistent with the ncp to such a high degree as to be arbitrary and capricious but also stating that failure to comply with the ncp is not a defense to liability but rather a factual issue affecting damages (B) holding that plaintiffs failure to substantially comply with public participation requirement rendered cleanup inconsistent with ncp (C) holding the director of the united states environmental protection agency in contempt for failure to comply with court order (D) holding that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages not only for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment but also for expenses of his defense (E) holding that a common law breach of contract action will lie for the insurers failure to comply with its obligation to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of the insured in its failure to settle with a third party

SOLUTION:
(A)