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.

Input: Consider Input: of the state action is sought. First, federal courts handling in personam cases have generally limited their decisions to enjoin state court proceedings to MDLs or complex national class actions. "Under an appropriate set of facts, a federal court entertaining complex litigation, especially when it involves a substantial class of persons from multiple states, or represents a consolidation of cases from multiple districts, may appropriately enjoin state court proceedings in order to protect its jurisdiction." Diet Drugs I, 282 F.3d at 235. In fact, several courts have declined to enjoin state court proceedings specifically because the federal action did not involve an MDL or a certified class action. See Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 523 F.3d 1091, 1103 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Gooch, 589 F.3d at 330-31 (declining to
Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections (B) holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable (C) holding that the commissions approval of a nonunanimous settlement agreement did not violate intervenors due process rights because the record shows that the appellant presented arguments in opposition to the settlement during the agenda conference in which the appellant was allowed thirty minutes to present its views in opposition to the settlement agreement (D) holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations (E) holding that an injunction was inappropriate because this was not an mdl case discovery was not complete no class settlement was imminent in fact as far as the record shows no serious settlement progress had been made

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: an individual has adequately stated a pri-ma facie claim. Cf. Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1334 (9th Cir.1995) ("An inquiry into the reasonableness of procedures ... belies a claim that liability under [15 U.S.C.] 1681e(b) must be predicated on the effect of that information once disseminated .... The district court was required to consider whether [the defendant] was liable under 1681e(b) before it determined that [the plaintiff] had suffered no recoverable damages."). Several courts have previously recognized the possibility that a claim for actual or compensatory damages under FCRA may include compensation for emotional distress in the absence of physical injury or out-of-pocket expenses. See, e.g., Bakker v. McKinnon, 152 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Philbin v. Trans Union Corp., 101 F.3d 957,
Holding statements: (A) holding in a fcra case that plaintiffs may not rely on mere conclusory statements rather they must sufficiently articulate true demonstrable emotional distress including the factual context in which the emotional distress arose evidence corroborating the testimony of the plaintiff the nexus between the conduct of the defendant and the emotional distress the degree of such mental distress mitigating circumstances if any physical injuries suffered due to the emotional distress medical attention resulting from the emotional duress psychiatric or psychological treatment and the loss of income if any (B) holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress (C) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the incomplete and late submission of expert reports was not harmless (D) holding that under the first amendment where there is no proof of actual malice damages are limited to actual injury which excludes punitive damages but is not limited to outofpocket loss (E) holding that even in the absence of outofpocket expenses or costs incurred the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding actual and punitive damages when appellees testified about how they felt when appellant obtained their credit reports and violated their privacy thereby causing them some emotional distress

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: that only Oxford moved for removal of the default in the December 4, 2007 motion, so the default is still in effect as to B&M. 9 This language falls within the recording requirements for "(ljiens under sections two and four ..." G.L.c. 254, 8. A lien under section one, however, incorporates the above-quoted language by requiring "a like statement. . ." Id. 10 See The American Heritage Dictionary College Edition at 307 (2d ed. 1985) (defining "conditioned" as "[p]repared for a specific action or process"). 11 bn Count II of the Lead case the Plaintiffs assert a claim for breach of contract under 29 U.S.C. 185 against B&M. Count II is not dependent on the existence of the Lien and therefore survives Oxford's motion. See Driscoll v. Boston Edison Co., 25 Mass.App.Ct. 954, 955 (1988) (<HOLDING>). In May of 2007, however, the clerk entered a
Holding statements: (A) holding that state law controls whether issues decided in a prior state court action are entitled to preclusive effect and setting forth the elements of collateral estoppel under washington law (B) holding that an action under 29 usc 185 may be brought in a state court but federal law controls over inconsistent state law internal citations omitted (C) holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law (D) holding that state court with jurisdiction over 301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law (E) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
Output: (B)