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: absence of any effort to serve Bustos with a summons or a complaint, the Receiver cannot claim substantial compliance with Rule 4. The Receiver’s failure even to attempt to comply with Rule 4 is no “minor defect,” United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir.1984), that can be remedied by actual notice. More importantly, the difficulty here runs deeper than mere insufficient service of process. The Receiver never filed a complaint and never named Bustos as a party. In other words, the Receiver never commenced an action against Bustos, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; it simply named Bustos in a motion for the disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains earned through the sale of unregistered securities. See In re Alpha Telcom, 2004 WL 3142555, at *1 (<HOLDING>). Prior to Bustos’s intervention in the action, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons (B) holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons (C) holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint (D) holding that a formal summons and complaint were unnecessary because the motion before the court is not an independent action (E) holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service

Answer: (D)


Question: abuse of a minor, the trial court may apply the statutory presumption that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. And if the trial court again finds that Rowan sexually abused Agnes, it can conclude that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. v. CONCLUSION We REMAND this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is RETAINED. 1 . We use pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the parties. 2 . The record does not show that Rowan attempted to obtain the information any other way, such as by scheduling a deposition, before making his motion. 3 . AS 40.25.100-295. AST relied on AS 40.25.120(a)(2), records pertaining to juveniles, and (a)(6), law enforcement records. 4 . 533 P.2d 13, 16 (Alaska 1975) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1053 
 Holding statements: (A) holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk (B) holding that mere knowledge of a defect is not sufficient to amount to an eighth amendment claim defendant must also draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious harm exists (C) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (D) holding that fathers sexual abuse of daughter demonstrated serious disregard of parental responsibilities and lack of social and moral values that posed substantial risk of harm to sons (E) holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative

Answer: (D)


Question: that the cause of Ford’s injuries was not the Defendants’ various alleged negligent acts and omissions, but rather the subsequent false arrest and false imprisonment that flowed from those actions. Indeed, had the Defendants miscalculated the duration of Ford’s supervised release and requested arrest warrants be issued, but not arrested and detained Ford, Ford’s Amended Complaint suggests that he would not have suffered any damage. For these reasons, Ford’s damages arise out of his false arrest and/or false imprisonment, not the alleged negligent actions of the USPC and CSOSA Defendants. See Kugel, 947 F.2d at 1507 (concluding that plaintiffs claims, though couched in terms of negligence, sounded in defamation and were therefore barred under FTCA); see also Snow-Erlin, 470 F.3d at 809 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds that Ford’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative (B) holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest (C) holding that state jurisdiction over claims by union members against employer for false arrest false imprisonment and malicious prosecution were not preempted under garmon (D) holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment (E) holding that plaintiff could not sidestep the ftcas exclusion of false imprisonment claims by suing for the damage of false imprisonment under the label of negligence

Answer:
(E)