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.

Ex Input:
and systematic," even when the cause of action has no relation to those contacts. LSI Indus. Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2000) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). The district court correctly found that it lacked general jurisdiction over Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer has very limited contacts with California. Oppenheimer has shipped unspecified items to the defendant Spectrum Effects, Inc. of California. However, the record gives no indication of the context and significance of these shipments for Oppenheimer's business. Appellants failed to show that these acts amount to continuous and systematic contacts with California. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 418, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Oppenheimer has exhibited
Holding statements: (A) holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant (B) holding that purchases even if occurring at regular intervals were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation (C) holding that business visits and purchases within a forum even if occurring at regular intervals are not enough to support general jurisdiction over a defendant (D) holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction (E) holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
purposes of nonclient standing] is a question of fact."). Neither party argues that Mark and Marie share some type of legally recognizable confidential relationship, and Marie offered no evidence to the district court that Mark acquired any privileged, confidential information from Marie. In Brown, this court concluded that "disqualification is not warranted absent proof of a reasonable probability that counsel actually acquired privileged, confidential information." 116 Nev. at 1202, 14 P.3d at 1267 (emphasis added). Similarly, in the context of familial relationships, other courts have declined to disqualify counsel absent proof that counsel actually acquired confidential information from a family member. See, e.g., Addam v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 39, 42 (Ct. App. 2004) (<HOLDING>); DCH Health Services, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d at
Holding statements: (A) holding in a marital dissolution action that a sibling relationship between a husbands attorney and a wifes former physician was insufficient to disqualify the attorney and explaining that the attorneys brother presumably possesses confidential information relating to the wife but there is no evidence that he disclosed any such information to his sister (B) holding that presumption of access to and knowledge of confidential information between attorney and former client notwithstanding attorneys declarations to the contrary may not be rebutted (C) holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney (D) holding that a wife is not liable simply by virtue of the marital relationship for her husbands fraudulent acts (E) holding that a corporate insider must abstain from trading in shares of his own corporation unless he has first disclosed the material information known to him not because of the relationship between the buyer and seller but because of the relationship of trust and confidence between the shareholders and the insider who obtained the confidential information by reason of his position with that corporation that relationship gives rise to a duty to disclose because of the need to prevent the insider from taking unfair advantage of the uninformed minority stockholders

Ex Output:
(A)

Ex Input:
class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' action." Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790. "[A] plaintiff must allege both that the conspiracy was motivated by discriminatory animus against an identifiable class and that the discrimination against the identifiable 'class was invidious." Farber, 440 F.3d at 135. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a conspiracy under 1985 as he has not alleged "the conspiracy was motivated by discriminatory animus against an identifiable class .... " Ibid. He instead alleges the conspiracy was motivated by Defendants' desire to cover up their past misconduct or to prevent further litigation, neither of which is sufficient to state a claim under 1985(3). See Hamilton v. Lajoie, 660 F.Supp.2d 261, 266 (D.Conn.2009)(<HOLDING>). As it is possible that Plaintiff may be able
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct (B) holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct (C) holding that a refusal to make false statements that no misconduct occurred is a very different circumstance than an affirmative statement of misconduct (D) holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government (E) holding inmates failure to allege that officers misconduct was motivated by raceor classbased discriminatory animus rather than desire to conceal their own misconduct was insufficient under 19853

Ex Output:
(E)