With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wayne Cty. Children Services (May 9, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 00CA0029, 2001 WL 489959, at *2). Because Corbett has failed to identify any statements that Defendants made with the intent to mislead him, he cannot prevail on his fraud claim. Defendants also argue that Corbett has not alleged, and cannot prove, that he justifiably relied on the statements at issue. The record shows that far from relying on Defendants’ statements, Corbett challenged them in state court, denying that Beneficial Ohio had a valid security interest in his residence, and filing a motion to vacate the judgment and decree of foreclosure. Defendants maintain that Corbett’s actions foreclose a finding of reliance. See Canterbury v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, No. C2-99-1212, 2001 WL 1681132, at *12 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 25, 2001) (<HOLDING>). In response, Corbett acknowledges that he did

A: holding that plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection her complaints and the adverse action
B: holding that plaintiff who disputed her gas bill and refused to pay it could not establish that she was induced to take any action to her detriment
C: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
D: holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
B.