Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): have expected that policyholders would assert claims and that some of the claims would be disputed. For some reason, EDS did not install a procedure for forwarding claims or notices served in its mail room. Nothing in the record excuses EDS’s misplacing of those claims and notices or its resulting failure to respond. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 67 comment b (1980) (“In the case of ... organizations that ought to expect to be sued from time to time, the question [in determining whether neglect is excusable] is whether their procedure for responding, particularly the procedure for putting the case in the hands of counsel, could be expected to function within the time al lowed.”); see also Secretary of State v. GPAK Corp., 95 N.J. Super. 82, 230 A.2d 146 (App.Div.1967) (<HOLDING>). EDS, therefore, is not entitled to relief 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that corporations neglect in receiving notice of entry of judgment against it and not forwarding notice to corporations registered agent was inexcusable (B) holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city (C) holding premature notice of appeal was treated as entered on date of entry of final judgment (D) holding that notice of judgment was insufficient (E) holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner
Output (English): holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city