In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[EX Q]: provider in the course of treatment. In cases involving successive tortfeasors whose separate causal contributions to the plaintiff’s harm can be measured, the doctrine of joint and several liability applies only to the enhanced portion of the injury. See Keeton et al. § 52, at 352 (discussing distinction between original tortfeasor’s liability, which encompasses entire injury, and treating physician’s liability, which extends only to negligent treatment); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433A cmt. c. 17. Even though the original tortfeasor may be held hable for both the original and the enhanced injury, the imposition of entire liability is only temporary. The original tortfeasor, whose duty is of a different character and who is not in pari delicto with a successive 35, 42 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Thus liability for the enhanced injury may be 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right under federal maritime law to contribution or indemnity from another tortfeasor (B) holding that contribution will lie where no statute precludes recovery from the joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought (C) holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because it was not an innocent party (D) recognizing a right to contribution (E) holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution
[EX A]: recognizing the right under federal maritime law to contribution or indemnity from another tortfeasor

[EX Q]: in the petition no later than thirty days from the day on which the first defendant was served. Id. at 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). As a general premise, under the “first-served rule,” defendants who are properly served within thirty days of the first defendant’s service must join in the removal petition. The “failure to do so renders the petition defective.” Id. at 1262. Under the facts of Getty, however, the application of the first-served rule did not produce an inequitable result. Nonetheless, recognizing the potential for harsh results, other decisions provide that exceptional circumstances may sometimes require relief from strict application of the rule in order to achieve equitable results. See Milstead Supply Co. v. Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F.Supp. 569, 573 (W.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 482 (5th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties (B) holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective (C) holding that dismissal of some but not all of the defendants who had been served with complaint is not a final order (D) holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served (E) holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena
[EX A]: holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties

[EX Q]: held unconstitutional, as long as the unlawfulness [of defendant’s actions] was apparent in light of pre-exist-ing law.” Malik v. Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 727 (9th Cir.1995). Butler cites no case directly demonstrating that the asserted right was clearly established in 2005. She contends that in 2005 it was clearly established that “a seizure becomes unlawful when it is more intrusive than necessary to accomplish the objectives that justified the seizure in the first place.” Be that as it may, the circumstances of Butler’s arrest do not demonstrate that her detention was unconstitutionally intrusive. To the contrary, it was established that Perez could detain Butler during the search of her car and home. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agents were allowed to seize and question occupants of business while executing search warrant for illegal aliens (B) holding that it is permissible under the fourth amendment to detain occupants of a residence while executing a search warrant of the residence (C) holding that a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted (D) holding that officers may detain the occupants of a house while executing a search warrant (E) holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted
[EX A]:
holding that agents were allowed to seize and question occupants of business while executing search warrant for illegal aliens