With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". District, and Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District) who are dismissing their claims as none of their wells were ever contaminated. 55 . In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., 175 F.Supp.2d 593, 608 (S.D.N.Y.2001). 56 . Hearing Tr. at 31:1-2. This Court has never definitively ruled that the threat of contamination is a compensable injury. See id. at 50:4-23 (exchange between Richard Wallace, counsel for Shell and on behalf of settling defendants, and the Court). 57 . See Third Supp. Sher Deck ¶¶ 2-10 (discussing past costs incurred in California cases); Second Supp. Summy Deck ¶¶ 3-4 (discussing past costs in Illinois case). 58 . See Plainview Water District v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., 856 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2008 WL 220192 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. Jan. 9, 2008) (<HOLDING>). 59 . See Hearing Tr. at 35:17-19 (Mr. Sher).

A: holding that despite extensive expert testimony plaintiff failed to prove its wells were imminently threatened with mtbe contamination
B: holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony
C: holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement
D: holding that where larzelere claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a concrete expert defendant failed to prove prejudice because she failed to show what a concrete expert would have testified to or how testimony would have cast doubt on her guilt
A.