With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “we do not read the statute to authorize an award of attorney fees to [the defendants merely because they successfully prevailed against the claims asserted by [the p]laintiff.” Rather, this Court held that the defendants needed to show that “there [was] no arguable basis in law or fact to support the cause of action and the claim [was] not supported by a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Id. {17} In reviewing the cases presented by the Lottery, we discern sufficient differences between the case law from other states and the situation in New Mexico to allow for plausible arguments, even if we do not ultimately agree with those arguments. See, e.g., Janis v. Cal. State Lottery Comm’n, 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 549, 553 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Cal. Gov’t Code § 8880.2 (West 2008)

A: holding that a private cause of action exists for violations of wva code  331143 and 5 of the unfair trade practices act
B: holding that a cause of action exists under the connecticut unfair trade practices act for violations of the cuipa
C: holding that the lottery commission was not a person under the unfair practices act
D: holding that regulation of unfair labor practices in mining regulated production not commerce
C.