Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 574. 19 . Although the parties did not fully brief this issue, we must consider it as it goes to whether the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See McDonal, 408 F.3d at 182-83 (if court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, case must be remanded to state court). 20 . Smallwood, 385 F.3d at 575. 21 . Id. at 574. 22 . McDonal, 408 F.3d at 184 (quoting Rainwater v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam)). 23 . See Rainwater, 391 F.3d at 638. 24 . Ameen concedes that she has no cause of action against the individual defendants on her retaliation claim. 25 . WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998). 26 . See Abbott v. Pollock, 946 S.W.2d 513, 520 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). 27 . Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.002. 28 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (B) holding that appellants failed to raise material issue of fact when they relied on their belief that appellee or his employees had spoken disparagingly about them (C) holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim (D) holding that the nonmovant failed to raise a fact issue on mitigation by not raising a fact issue as to the amount of damages that could have been avoided had the movantproperly mitigated his damages (E) holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract
Output (English): holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract