Definition: 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: for the litigation, resulting from irresistible pressure on Defendants to settle the matter. Under this consideration, we determine whether the defendant has made a sufficient showing "that the damages claimed would force a company of its size to settle without relation to the merits of the class's claims." Lorazepam, 289 F.3d at 108. FIE has been defending multiple class action suits throughout the country, and stipulated to the MDL. Defendants do not show why they will feel forced to settle this particular state litigation, while they are able to withstand and even voluntarily assume the pressure of the consolidated MDL. {15} In connection with the death-knell factor, we will normally also look for error or a substantial weakness in the certification order. See Blair, 181 F.3d at 835 (<HOLDING>). However, because Defendants have not
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the futility in granting review of a class certification decision that is impervious to revision even if the decision effectively terminates the litigation (B) holding that the plaintiff was effectively asking the federal court to review and rule on the propriety of the state court action and that granting the requested relief would effectively declare the state court order invalid (C) holding that district court in making class certification decision should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action (D) holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted (E) holding that once a regional office decision is final a claimant may only attempt to overcome the finality of that decision in one of two ways a request for revision of the decision based on clear and unmistakable error or a claim to reopen based upon new and material evidence
Output:
(A)