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.

Example Input: in nature and may be waived if not timely raised. Section 1445(c) applies to prohibit the removal of a civil action arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of a state. It does not prohibit federal district court’s from exercising supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367. The state worker compensation statutes themselves may affect the court’s jurisdiction by requiring claims to be filed with an administrative agency. However, such is not the case for claims of retaliatory discharge for exercising rights under Michigan’s WDCA. As noted above, the expeditious and inexpensive procedures found in Michigan’s WDCA are not utilized when an employee alleges retaliatory discharge. Such a claim is treated like any other tort and can be filed in state court. See Delke, 460 N.W.2d at 327-28 (<HOLDING>); see also Lamoria, 584 N.W.2d at 600; Chiles 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge (B) holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws (C) recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act (D) holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws (E) holding that the bureau of workers disability compensation did not have jurisdiction to hear retaliation claims and explaining that the michigan legislatures intent was not to create an administrative remedy for retaliatory discharge
Example Output: recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge

Example Input: The Court is not at liberty to follow the law of other Circuits if it contradicts -the law of this Circuit. Plaintiffs’ other argument relies on the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Delta Coal Program v. Libman, 743 F.2d 852 (11th Cir. 1984) which stated that Summit Office Park applies only when a Plaintiff without standing adds a new party and a new cause of action. Delta Coal Program, 743 F.2d at-857, n.6. (“Here, by contrast, the operative facts and the cause of action are not changed, but only the formally named plaintiff.”). Delta Coal Program, however, does not apply to the present case. First, the district court there permitted the substitution of new plaintiffs, and it was within the court’s discretion to do so. Delta Coal Program v. Libman, 743 F.2d 852, 856 (11th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs did not ask 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties (B) holding that when district court has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over sapcr matter judge of another district court in same county may rule in matter so long as record is clear that judge is acting on behalf of court with continuing and exclusive jurisdiction (C) holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest (D) holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court (E) holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive
Example Output: holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties

Example Input: 301 (1932). The trial court did not err in sustaining St. Al-ban’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The judgment is affirmed. AHRENS, P.J. and KAROHL, J., concur. 1 . William Rosenburg died on May 28, 1996. Jewell Rosenburg has filed an affidavit attesting that no letters of administration was applied for or granted for the one year period after William Rosenburg’s death. 2 . On August 19, 1997, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and on August 25, 1997 plaintiffs filed an amendment to the motion for summary judgment and Patricia Riebold’s affidavit. The circuit court entered its judgment sustaining St. Alban’s motion on August 25, 1997 and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as moot. 3 . See, e.g., Estate of Crawshaw, 249 Kan. 388, 819 P.2d 613, 618 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. First Presbyterian Church, 284 N.C. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unvested stock options are a form of compensation and constituted marital property that could be distributed through use of a constructive trust (B) holding that if testamentary trust fails proceeds are distributed to the residuary legatee (C) holding that if the trust becomes operative thereafter fails and cy pres is inapplicable the devolution of the trust goes to the heirs at law and not to residuary legatees (D) holding that heirs at law of testatrix were not necessary parties to action where trust fails cy pres is inapplicable and the will contained a residuary clause and finding no basis to distinguish between the situation where the trust does or does not become operative (E) holding that where the will did not provide the life tenant with the power to sell and it was not necessary to sell the property for the payment of estate expenses the life tenant was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property instead the proceeds became a part of the residuary estate
Example Output:
holding that unvested stock options are a form of compensation and constituted marital property that could be distributed through use of a constructive trust