instruction:
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.
question:
Joseph F. Nascimento and his minor daughter Kendall E. Nascimento appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of their civil rights action seeking reversal of a Montana state court decision regarding the custody of Kendall Nascimento. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal and affirm. See H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration (B) holding that federal district courts should abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings (C) holding that courts should only abstain under younger if the state proceedings are coercive and not remedial and citing a number of district court opinions (D) recognizing that the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings generally requires federal courts to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings (E) holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law
answer:
holding that a court should abstain when an exercise of jurisdiction might lead to a parallel federal regulatory review mechanism complicating state administration


question:
39:4-88(b), the mandate to drive within a single lane to the extent practicable applies, whether or not a deviation from that lane imposes a risk to another driver. The statute’s second clause addresses a related, but discrete, mandate of the Code. It requires a driver to ascertain the safety of switching lanes before conducting a lane change. N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). Unlike the violation described in the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), the violation described in the second clause is avoided if a driver, in a roadway with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, first determines that departure from a lane may be conducted safely. The Appellate Division’s limitation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) to the violation identified in the statute’s second clause would render t .App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the courts of our sister states, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness (B) holding that tex transp code ann  545060a describes one offense (C) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (D) holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense (E) holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods
answer:
holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness


question:
it to sue purely as a representative of its members — in other words, to act as a “private attorney general.” See National Ass’n of Realtors, 894 F.2d at 940-41. Therefore, because NAS-FA is suing only on behalf of its members, and not to adjudicate any of its own rights, NASFA’s members are the real parties in interest to this controversy, and it is their citizenship that should control for diversity jurisdiction purposes. This conclusion accords with the “well settled” general principle, in this circuit and elsewhere, that divers upp. 267, 270-71 (D.Md. 1995) (finding that corporate franchisees who had property interests at stake were not nominal or formal parties who could be ignored for diversity purposes); Workman v. Nat’l Supaflu Sys., Inc., 676 F.Supp. 690, 693 (D.S.C.1987) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Turnamics, Inc., v. Advanced 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same (B) holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members (C) holding that corporation that may be liable under state law was not a nominal party and thus its citizenship in same state as plaintiff destroyed diversity jurisdiction (D) holding that lawyer who acted as mere depository for funds was nominal party whose citizenship should not be considered for diversity purposes (E) holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction
answer:

holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same