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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) (‘We do not ... believe § 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim.” (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng’rs, Inc. v. Lafourche 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that  1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand

Answer: (B)


Question: analysis and did not provide any guidance as to its future implications.... ”); Schafer, 598 N.E.2d at 553 (“Sturrup is out of the mainstream of caselaw on equal protection analysis_(citation omitted));. Robbins, 941 F.Supp. at 793 (“Federal equal protection ‘rational basis’ analysis does not contain an ‘overbroad’ component. Rather, high school transfer rules, like the rule in question, are valid and enforceable.” (citations omitted)); Jordan, 813 F.Supp. at 1381 (refusing to apply Sturrup overbreadth scrutiny and writing “Indiana’s practice of subjecting equal protection and procedural due process claims to ‘over 75 (N.D.Ill.1978) (finding Illinois version of Transfer Rule did not violate equal protection); Simkins v. S.D. High Sch. Activities Ass’n, 434 N.W.2d 367 (S.D.1989) (<HOLDING>); Chabert v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 323 
 Holding statements: (A) holding illinois high school associations version of the transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that the cap does not violate equal protection (D) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (E) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest

Answer: (B)


Question: himself as a citizen on a matter of public concern outweighs any injury the speech could cause to the employer’s interest in promoting effective and efficient public service. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). Kiser’s claim fails because he specifically alleges that he was expressing himself as a public employee, not as a citizen: “Defendants retaliated against and harmed [him] because he exercised his constitutional speech rights when he fulfilled his duties as Executive Administrator by not speaking publicly.” (Compl.t 70(c) (emphasis added).) By alleging that he was expressing himself in his official capacity as Executive Administrator, Kiser has pleaded himself out of court. See Youker v. Schoenenberger, 22 F.3d 163, 166-67 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 143, 103 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation (B) holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern (C) holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected (D) holding that the plaintiffs speech was not constitutionally protected because it was made in his official capacity and there was simply no evidence that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern (E) holding that a police officer speaking to a public official about his concerns over public safety issues is speaking in his capacity  as a police officer and not as a citizen

Answer:
(D)