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.

Example Input: reasoning of these cases. Moreover, we believe that declaratory relief is also moot when the challenged acts have already "irretrievably occurred." Accordingly, we apply the teachings of N.J. Tpk. Auth., that the claim for injunctive relief had become "academic by reason of these changed circumstances .... " Id. at 27. Here, as in N.J. Tpk. Auth., the challenged action awarding the contracts has already occurred, and the work required by them has already been performed. There is no longer a " 'subject matter upon which the judgment of the court can operate' to make a substantive determination on the merits." Id. at 30 (quoting Ex parte Baez, 177 U.S. 378, 390, 20 S.Ct. 673, 44 L.Ed. 813 (1900)); see also Jersey Cent. Power and Light Co. v. State of N.J., 772 F.2d 35, 36 (3d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). II. For Appellants to be prevailing parties
Holding statements: (A) holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot (B) holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc 1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action (C) holding that a challenge to a mining plan was moot where the action sought to be enjoined hadbeen completed (D) holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer (E) holding that injunctive claim was rendered meaningless since the state action sought to be enjoined has irretrievably occurred
Example Output: holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot

Example Input: prejudice. Common v. W. Suburban Hosp. Med. Ctr., 301 Ill.App.3d 939, 235 Ill.Dec. 158, 704 N.E.2d 731, 738-39 (1998) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We quoted Common and echoed its sentiment in Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 614 (7th Cir.2000), where we held that a district court's failure to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to comply with section 2-622 was an abuse of discretion. Second, although the district court believed that plaintiffs' counsel should have known to submit an affidavit and report in accordance with section 2-622, it made no specific finding that the failure to do so was in bad faith or an attempt to delay litigation. See Cookson v. Price, 393 Ill.App.3d 549, 333 Ill.Dec. 22, 914 N.E.2d 229, 232 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Further, it did not explain whether or in
Holding statements: (A) holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a (B) holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension (C) holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith (D) holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment (E) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel
Example Output: holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a

Example Input: 1999 that she needed surgery. (See PL's Am. Compl. 15; PL's Opp'n at 42, 43.) It is undisputed that, "at various times, [Porter and plaintiff] talked about [their] back problems." (Walfoort Deck, Ex. 6 at 233). It is also undisputed that Porter "was aware that [plaintiff] periodically had pains" and knew that Amtrak provided her with an oversized chair. (Id. at 233-234.) Yet that is the only evidence other than her own conclusory statements that plaintiff advances to demonstrate that Amtrak regarded her as being disabled. She d 1089 (8th Cir.2000) (same); Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 140 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir.1998) (same); Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir.1996) (same); Simonson v. Trinity Reg'l Health Sys., 336 F.3d 706, 709 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Benoit v. Technical Mfg. Corp., 331 F.3d 166,
Holding statements: (A) holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled (B) holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled (C) holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation (D) holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled (E) holding that evidence that defendant provided plaintiff with certain accommodations for her condition was insufficient to establish that defendant regarded her as disabled for purposes of ada absent showing that the defendant maintained any misperceptions about her condition
Example Output:
holding that an employers awareness of an employees impairment without more is insufficient to demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as disabled