Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): with the majority opinion affirming the order of the superior court dismissing the declaratory action brought by Hudson International, Inc., et. al. I write separately to note that in this case, there exists an unusually close relationship between Fitzgerald' S. Hudson and Hudson International. Furthermore, the trial court in the action filed in District Court, Wilson County, found that the “Southerly” property was within the jurisdiction of the district court to be equitably distributed as marital property; additionally, the trial court found that Fitzgerald Hudson’s actions with respect to “Southerly” evidenced his “calculated intent ... to divest the Plaintiff of her marital property rights” therein. Thus, the decision of Garrison v. Garrison, 90 N.C. App. 670, 369 S.E.2d 628 (1988) (<HOLDING>), controls the outcome of this case. However, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding citys plea to the jurisdiction in rule 202 proceeding properly denied because district court had jurisdiction over portion of claim under investigation even if city and governmental agency had exclusive jurisdiction over another portion of claim (B) holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement (C) holding over (D) holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property (E) holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction
Output (English): holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction