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.

[Q]: Apr. 14, 2011). Accord Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 274 (2d Cir.2009) (dismissing a retaliation claim whose only causal basis was a letter that plaintiff wrote many weeks before the allegedly retaliatory acts, implicating officers other than named defendants). See also Def. Mem. at 11 ("[A] claim that one defendant took action against the plaintiff in retaliation for a complaint made against a different [officer] [should be] viewed with particular skepticism."). 40 . Def, Mem. at 17. 41 . See id. (citing exclusively to Eighth Amendment cases). 42 .Id. 43 . See Wright, 554 F.3d at 274. 44 . Def. Mem. at 18. 45 . Def. Mem. at 19. 46 . Davis, 320 F.3d at 353. 47 . Dawes, 239 F.3d at 493. 48 . Compare Hofelich v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 1369, 2010 WL 1459740, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2010) (<HOLDING>), with Rembert v. Cheverko, No. 12 Civ. 9196, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim (B) holding that a verbal threat of being fired is not an adverse employment action for purposes of title vii (C) holding that verbal threats if they are specific can constitute adverse action for retaliation purposes (D) holding that a suspension with pay may constitute materially adverse action for the purposes of retaliation claims depending on the facts of the case (E) holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action
[A]: holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim


[Q]: on the conditions stated in the publicly-filed limited partnership certificate. We affirm the appellants’ liability under § 106(l)(b). The certificates of limited partnership for TSG, TMG, and TSG 80 all state that, if necessary to satisfy the partnership’s recourse obligations, each limited partner has agreed, upon demand, to make an additional capital contribution of up to three times the limited partner’s original investment. These certificates were recorded publicly in New York County. Accordingly, the capital of the Limited Partnerships upon which creditors properly could rely included the limited partners’ stated ob ligation to make additional capital contributions. See Arno Management Corp. v. 115 East 69th Assocs., 173 A.D.2d 258, 260, 569 N.Y.S.2d 656, 657 (1st Dept.1991) (<HOLDING>). Section 106(l)(b) explicitly provides a means 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest (B) holding that appellate jurisdiction is limited to the issues contained in the certificate of appealability (C) recognizing partnership by estoppel only with respect to claims by persons who have reasonably relied upon outward representations of partnership (D) recognizing that same principle applies where defendant is general partner of limited partnership which in turn is general partner of limited partnership with contacts with state (E) holding that the information contained in the certificate of limited partnership binds the partnership and the partners with respect to third parties
[A]: holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest


[Q]: judgment and the trial court held in favor of Building Venture as a matter of law. The time to have presented a meritorious defense was at this time. Bush and Miller’s lawyer received notice of this hearing and appeared on their behalf. This fact alone disproves their claim that they were prevented from presenting a meritorious defense. But even if it did not, the trial in 1990 disposed of the case against a third defendant, Mosby, not Bush and Miller; their rights were not adjudicated at that time, having been adjudicated previously. The only other event Bush and Miller had a right to receive notice of for due process claims was entry of the final judgment signed January 25, 1991. See e.g., Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (<HOLDING>). But neither this appeal nor the bill of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an officers forcible rape of a woman violates her substantive due process rights (B) holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice (C) holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause (D) holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights (E) holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard
[A]:
recognizing that an officers forcible rape of a woman violates her substantive due process rights