Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): state law causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. IV. DISPOSITION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23). The Clerk shall remove Document 23 from the Court’s pending motions list. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . In Bell Atlantic Corp., the United States Supreme Court rejected the language previously used by the Court in Conley v. Gibson, providing that "[i]n appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See Bell Atlantic Corp., 127 S.Ct. at 1969 (<HOLDING>). 2 . Though there are other pleading 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical (B) holding that the conley no set of facts language has earned its retirement and is best forgotten (C) holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning (D) holding that dismissal is inappropriate unless it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations (E) holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime
Output (English): holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime