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.
Q: motion for partial summary judgment is granted. SO ORDERED. 1 . The Malley plaintiffs have fully settled and compromised their claims against the defendants and their joint motion to dismiss their action with prejudice was granted by an Order dated September 16, 2003. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide no mechanism by which a ruling that issues exist for trial can be obtained. The plaintiffs' motion seeking that ruling will be regarded as in furtherance of their opposition to the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. 2 . On May 6, 2002, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Kocoras's grant of the wholesaler's motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the individual plaintiffs' claims against them. In re BNPD Antitrust Litig., 288 F.3d 1028, 1032-35 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 3 . However, the individual plaintiffs raise
Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs 19853 claim alleging a conspiracy among a corporation and its directors to discriminate against her on the basis of sex was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine (B) holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction (C) holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges (D) holding evidence insufficient to show that wholesalers knew of manufacturers alleged conspiracy to price discriminate between retailers and hospitals and hmos via chargeback system (E) holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold
A:
holding plaintiffs 19853 claim alleging a conspiracy among a corporation and its directors to discriminate against her on the basis of sex was barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine