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 Input:
individual has breached a duty of reasonable care. Bolick v. Sunbird Airlines, Inc., 96 N.C. App. 443, 386 S.E.2d 76 (1989), aff'd, 327 N.C. 464, 396 S.E.2d 323 (1990). Sudden emergency does not change or reduce the standard of reasonable care. It is simply one of the factors to be considered in determining whether a person acted reasonably under the circumstances. Id. The sudden emergency doctrine permits the court to call to the attention of the jury that an emergency faced by the actor may influence its determination of whether specific conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. The doctrine of sudden emergency is not a legal defense which operates to bar an action. Id. But cf. Hinson v. Brown, 80 N.C. App. 661, 343 S.E.2d 284, rev. denied, 318 N.C. 282, 348 S.E.2d 138 (1986) (<HOLDING>). External forces that have been found to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency (B) holding that sudden emergency is an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead (C) recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove (D) holding that a claim of exemption is an affirmative defense which must be specifically pleaded (E) holding that to avoid an affirmative defense  a plaintiff must plead specifically matters of affirmative avoidance pursuant to rule 5508

Ex Output:
holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency


Ex Input:
and seeking to dismiss the four new claims asserted against them in the amended complaint. Also on January 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a supplemental motion to dismiss [26], addressing the new claims against it and renewing its request that all counts be dismissed. II. Discussion The Court must determine whether: (1) Giscombe eliminated the deficiencies of his previous shotgun pleading, and (2) if so, whether the complaint should be dismissed for the other reasons asserted by ABN, Citimortgage, and Wells Fargo in their motions to dismiss. A. Legal Standard The sufficiency of Giscombe’s amended complaint depends on whether it is a shotgun pleading; if so, it will fall short of the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284-85 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The defining characteristic of a shotgun 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure (B) holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in  1983 litigation (C) holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted (D) holding that the fact that federal rule of civil procedure 9b requires a heightened pleading standard for some claims but not for a section 1983 claim against a municipality means that the rules do not require a heightened pleading standard for such a claim (E) holding that a shotgun pleading is in no sense the short and plain statement of a claim required by rule 8 of the federal rules of civil procedure

Ex Output:
recognizing the liberal notice and simplified pleading principles underlying the federal rules of civil procedure


Ex Input:
Co., Inc., 384 Pa.Super. 537, 559 A.2d 566 (dismantling of allegedly illegal surveillance equipment), appeal denied, 524 Pa. 628, 574 A.2d 70 (1989); McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp., 383 Pa.Super. 223, 556 A.2d 878 (refusal to mail insurance mailings that were allegedly in violation of state law), appeal denied, 525 Pa. 584, 575 A.2d 115 (1989). In each of these cases, however, the issue of whether the act alleged was indeed illegal was unclear; in light of this uncertainty, the courts felt that the judgement as to whether the act was illegal was in the hands of the employer and not the employee. Callahan, 541 F.Supp. at 563 ("employee complaints on matters generally entrusted to management” do not rise to the level of a clear mandate of public policy); Hineline, 559 A.2d at 569-70 (<HOLDING>); McGonagle, 556 A.2d at 885 ("when the act to 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that takings cases are based on the proper exercise of statutory and regulatory authority (B) holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted (C) holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced (D) holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority (E) holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection

Ex Output:

recognizing that takings cases are based on the proper exercise of statutory and regulatory authority