Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): prosthesis for the plaintiffs’ daughter, Brittany. On May 10, 1996, the defendant filed a , timely Notice of Removal to this Court on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), two alternative theories. On June 5, 1996, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. II. DISCUSSION The plaintiffs’ argument in support of remand is that this case must contain a federal question in order for this Court to have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The plaintiffs a se the defendant raises a federal defense to a state law claim, including the federal defense of preemption. Gaming Corp. of America v. Dorsey & Whitney, 88 F.3d 536, 543 (8th Cir.1996); Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 43, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908) (<HOLDING>). The right of removal under § 1441 and § 1331 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law (B) holding that a federal defense to a state cause of action does not support federalquestion jurisdiction (C) holding that federal issues interposed as a defense generally do not create a cause of action arising under federal law (D) holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent (E) holding that a federal cause of action for damages arises upon a federal agents unconstitutional conduct
Output (English): holding that a federal defense to a state cause of action does not support federalquestion jurisdiction