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.
--------
Question: if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover the appendectomy are properly attributed to the terms of the plan itself, not the managed care entity that applied those terms. 4 Respondents also argue that ERISA 502(a) completely pre-empts a state cause of action only if the cause of action would be pre-empted under ERISA 514(a); respondents then argue that their causes of action do not fall under the terms of 514(a). But a state cause of action that provides an alternative remedy to those provided by the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism conflicts with Congress' clear intent to make the ERISA mechanism exclusive. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S.133, 142 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 ERISA 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa 514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa (E) recognizing the cause of action

Answer: (C)

Question: Raye Ellen Stiles appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her action alleging, among other claims, housing discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo and may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record. Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 733-34 (9th Cir.2012). We affirm. Summary judgment on Stiles' claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, aggravation of preexisting conditions, and public humiliation was proper because she already litigated these claims in Arizona state court, and, thus, res judicata precludes her from bringing such claims in federal court. See Sunkist Growers v. Fisher, 104 F.3d 280, 283-84 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Summary judgment on Stiles' federal claims
Holding statements: (A) holding that a person has standing to bring suit under the civil rights act if she or he can show that she or he was punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities (B) holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim (C) holding that while parents may not bring a title ix claim as individuals they may bring such claim on behalf of a deceased child (D) holding that under arizona law a litigant may not bring a claim identical to one she has previously litigated (E) holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea

Answer: (D)

Question: the present issue of what effect, if any, the appointment of a trustee would have on the limitation period. Id. 22 F.3d at 40. The several courts considering this issue have reached differing results. A Utah bankruptcy court, in Gillman v. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. (In re D-Mart Servs., Inc.), 138 B.R. 985 (Bankr.D.Utah 1992), has held that the subsequent appointment of a trustee in a case commenced under Chapter 11 generates a new two-year period under 546(a). The debtor in D-Mart had filed for reorganization on December 29, 1987 and operated thereafter as debtor in possession. The case was converted to Chapter 7 seven months later, on July 12, 1988, and a Chapter 7 trustee wa Lumber Corp.), 145 B.R. at 816 (adopting conclusions of D-Mart); In re Carroll Indus., 153 B.R. at 102 (<HOLDING>). Cf. also In re San Joaquin Roast Beef, 7 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment (B) holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act (C) holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated (D) holding that for causes of action not time barred as of the date of the trustees appointment the limitation period is tolled for an additional two years from the date of appointment (E) holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due

Answer:
(D)