Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Defendant relies on Ronald Mancuso’s confession to the thefts, in which he admits that the thefts continued through “September of 2004,” when “the City of Syracuse began to change out the single space parking meters with the ‘pay stations.’ ” See Dkt. No. 31-9 at 4. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, however, these documents do not render Plaintiffs breach of contract claim implausible. Even if the Court were to agree that a non-party’s confession in the criminal matter that led to the present action and a letter from Ronald Mancuso’s brother, who did not have personal knowledge of the events that allegedly transpired, should be considered documents upon which the pleading relied or facts of which the Court may take judicial notice, they d igeria, 265 F.R.D. 106, 124 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Finally, Defendant relies 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint (B) holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint (C) recognizing that a court is permitted to rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice (D) holding that a court may rely on documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice in deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (E) holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct
Output (English): holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct