With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that no such hard and fast benchmark exists, however. {See Oral Ruling on City’s Rule 52(c) Motion, Trial Tr., 1100-1104.) 16 . Ruiz v. City of Santa Mana, 160 F.3d 543, 553-54 (9th Cir.1998) (”[I]n a multi seat, mul-ti vote election, the ability of the minority to elect a non minority candidate is not as probative in a Gingles prong three analysis as the inability of the minority to elect a minority candidate.”); Uno v. City of Holyoke, 72 F.3d 973, 988 n. 8 (1st Cir.1995) ("Although the VRA does not require for a successful section 2 showing that minority-preferred candidates be members of the minority group, elections in which minority candidates run are often especially probative on the issue of racial bloc voting.”); Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494, 1540 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); LULAC v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831, 849 (5th

A: holding that strickland applies to cases involving successive representation
B: holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery
C: holding that elections involving only white candidates are generally less probative than those involving minority candidates
D: holding in dispute involving two insurers the federal action against only one insurer should be stayed in favor of state action involving both
C.