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.

[EX Q]: 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
[EX A]: holding that smud is entitled to 53159863 in mitigation costs but staying entry of judgment pending the outcome of this proceeding

[EX Q]: the in-state banking activities of these French and Japanese banks and Plaintiffs' claims arising from a terrorist attack that occurred in Israel with the support of the Iranian government. It certainly cannot be said that Plaintiffs' claims "directly arise" out of the banking activities of these local branches. See GCIU, 565 F.3d at 1024. Thus, under traditional legal principles, specific jurisdiction is lacking. Although the Seventh Circuit has not addressed this issue, two Circuits have reformulated the minimum-contacts inquiry in cases involving third-party discovery, focusing more narrowly "on the connection between the nonparty's contacts with the forum and the discovery order at issue." Gucci, 768 F.3d at 137; see also S.E.C. v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 418 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)., It is unclear whether this test is proper,
Holding statements: (A) holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction (B) holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit (C) holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas (D) holding that courts exercise of specific jurisdiction was proper where subpoena enforcement action arose out of nonpartys contacts with the forum (E) holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
[EX A]: holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction

[EX Q]: it to sue purely as a representative of its members in other words, to act as a "private attorney general." See National Ass'n of Realtors, 894 F.2d at 940-41. Therefore, because NAS-FA is suing only on behalf of its members, and not to adjudicate any of its own rights, NASFA's members are the real parties in interest to this controversy, and it is their citizenship that should control for diversity jurisdiction purposes. This conclusion accords with the "well settled" general principle, in this circuit and elsewhere, that divers upp. 267, 270-71 (D.Md. 1995) (finding that corporate franchisees who had property interests at stake were not nominal or formal parties who could be ignored for diversity purposes); Workman v. Nat'l Supaflu Sys., Inc., 676 F.Supp. 690, 693 (D.S.C.1987) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Turnamics, Inc., v. Advanced
Holding statements: (A) holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same (B) holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members (C) holding that corporation that may be liable under state law was not a nominal party and thus its citizenship in same state as plaintiff destroyed diversity jurisdiction (D) holding that lawyer who acted as mere depository for funds was nominal party whose citizenship should not be considered for diversity purposes (E) holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction
[EX A]:
holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same