With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pacleb, however, has not explained why, under the circumstances of this case, an admission of liability is nécessary to afford ■him complete relief on his- non-class claims. Pacleb’s. complaint sought only statutory damages and injunctive relief, not an admission of liability or a declaration that Allstate violated his rights. When a plaintiff has received “all the relief [he] could win on the merits,” an adjudication would have no “consequences on remaining related disputes between the parties” ■ and “nothing further would be ordered by the court, there is no point in proceeding to decide the merits.” 13B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § -3533.2 (3d ed.2015). See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 721, 726-33, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) (<HOLDING>); McCauley v. Trans Union, LLC, 402 F.3d 340,

A: holding that the restraint of a covenant not to compete must be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case and that only a legitimate business interest may be protected by the covenant
B: holding a covenant not to sue mooted a counterclaim of trademark invalidity notwithstanding the lack of an admission or finding of liability
C: holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract
D: holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law
B.