Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and has not argued that this defendant is a Thimerosal Defendant. Accordingly, the Holders have not shown that the district court e 78 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir.2002) (stating that an order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo). 7 . 343 F.3d 765 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 991, 125 S.Ct. 1823, 161 L.Ed.2d 755 (2005). 8 . 408 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2005). 9 . 381 F.3d 501 (5th Cir.2004). 10 . 385 F.3d at 571. 11 . Id. at 573 (quoting Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 646-47 (5th Cir.2003)). 12 . Id. 13 . Id. at 574. 14 . Id. 15 . Id. at 575; see also Rainwater v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that the Smallwood "common defense” rule only applies if the defense is "dispositive of all claims against all defendants”). 16 . 408 F.3d at 184 (<HOLDING>). 17 . 381 F.3d 501, 503-04 (5th Cir.2004) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city (B) holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration (C) holding that claims against vaccine manufacturers were subject to the vaccine act but claims against thimerosal manufacturers were not therefore the cause was properly removed based on a fraudulent joinder theory (D) holding the state law claims were not preempted (E) holding that claims based on asserted violations of the lad and  1983 are not subject to the new jersey tort claims act
Output (English): holding that claims based on asserted violations of the lad and  1983 are not subject to the new jersey tort claims act