Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The evidence was also found by the family court to be sufficient to support an order on January 29, 2008, enjoining Lisa from allowing Byles to be around L.S. “until further order of the court.” I would hold that the trial court erred in finding that Jesus was not immune from liability for defamation for his statements under Family Code section 261.106. I would further hold that the trial court erred in not hearing the jurisdictional facts pertinent to Jesus’s immunity defense before proceeding to trial on the merits of Byles’s defamation suit and entering judgment on Byles’s claim rather than dismissing Byles’s suit for lack of jurisdiction due to Byles’s failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 223; see also Brown, 13 S.W. at 472-73 (<HOLDING>); Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability (B) holding that an individual who is not served cannot be at fault or negligent in allowing a default judgment to be rendered (C) holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981 (D) holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable (E) holding that it was error to dismiss complaint against individual defendants who had acted as agents of corporate trustee who could be held personally liable
Output (English): holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981