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.

that Countrywide's actions must have been relatively limited because it did not succeed to Washington Mutual's interest until sometime in early 2007 approximately four and a half years after the judgment of foreclosure and approximately four and a half years into the bankruptcy process. 24 . See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 353 and comment a ("Recovery for emotional disturbance will be excluded unless the breach also caused bodily harm or the contract or the breach is of such a kind that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result.... Damages for emotional disturbance are not ordinarily allowed."). 25 . See Ogbin v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC, No. 08-4138, 2009 WL 1587896, **3-4, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46954 at *9-10 (D.NJ. May 29, 2009) (Cavanaugh, D.J.) (<HOLDING>). 26 . Moreover, even if Shapiro & Diaz had
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs met their burden by highlighting the experience and qualifications of plaintiffs counsels firm and the firms long history of practice in this area of law (B) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law (C) holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position (D) holding that plaintiffs law firm was subject to disqualifica tion when after unsuccessful mediation the plaintiffs firm hired the mediator appointed to settle the case (E) holding that law firm who was plaintiffs adversary in foreclosure proceeding owed no duty to plaintiffs as law firm could not have expected that plaintiffs would rely on law firms representations about payoff amounts
(E)