With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". relief, namely, to enjoin the Fire District permanently from violating the overtime provisions in the future. The district court found that the Fire District’s violations arose out of its failure to understand the Act’s requirements. The court found that this failure was careless, but inadvertent. The Fire District, in the court’s view, had not intended to violate the Act and had complied with the Act from the time that it learned about the Act’s requirements. The court concluded that there was “no evidence of any threatened future violation.” The record supports all these findings. We therefore find no abuse of the district court’s legal authority to determine whether or not a permanent injunction is needed. See Brock v. Big Bear Market No. 3, 825 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the district court is

A: holding that it is within the courts discretion to award both reinstatement and punitive damages for violation of  2114 although finding that the district courts decision not to award such remedies did not constitute an abuse of discretion
B: holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations
C: holding that a district courts discretion is not unbridled and that it must weigh finding of violation against factors indicating reasonable likelihood that violations will not recur such as intent to comply extraordinary efforts to prevent recurrence absence of repetitive violations and absence of bad faith
D: holding that insured cannot bring an action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim in the absence of an excess verdict
C.