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 Q]: the in-state banking activities of these French and Japanese banks and Plaintiffs’ claims arising from a terrorist attack that occurred in Israel with the support of the Iranian government. It certainly cannot be said that Plaintiffs’ claims “directly arise” out of the banking activities of these local branches. See GCIU, 565 F.3d at 1024. Thus, under traditional legal principles, specific jurisdiction is lacking. Although the Seventh Circuit • has not addressed this issue, two Circuits have reformulated the minimum-contacts inquiry in cases involving third-party discovery, focusing more narrowly “on the connection between the nonparty’s contacts with the forum and the discovery order at issue.” Gucci, 768 F.3d at 137; see also S.E.C. v. Knowles, 87 F.3d 413, 418 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)., It is unclear whether this test is proper, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction (B) holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit (C) holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas (D) holding that courts exercise of specific jurisdiction was proper where subpoena enforcement action arose out of nonpartys contacts with the forum (E) holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
[EX A]: holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction

[EX Q]: from the OSHA inspection after this incident were for repeat offenses, the repeat offense that appears pertinent to this ease was the failure to mark a container of hazardous chemicals so as to identify the chemical. The prior citation for such an offense is not in the record, and we are unable to determine whether the “repeat” aspect of the citation pertains only to the type of citation or to the particular location of the offending container. In any event, our supreme court has not yet held that OSHA citations are evidence that compels the conclusion that a coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur. In fact, in two cases involving OSHA citations, the court has held that such citations would not support that finding. See Ex parte Martin, 733 So.2d at 396 (<HOLDING>), and Harris v. Simmons, 585 So.2d 906, 908 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury (B) holding postaccident citation not sufficient to support finding that coemployee was substantially certain that injury or death would occur (C) holding that preaccident citation would not support a finding that coemployees were substantially certain that injury or death would occur (D) holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned (E) holding governments position substantially justified where sufficient support existed in precedent
[EX A]: holding that witnesss testimony was sufficient to support the trial courts finding that defendant committed battery that resulted in bodily injury

[EX Q]: business.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The statements alleged by Rivera to be defamatory include statements made by the individual defendants regarding Rivera’s alleged falsification of time cards and his alleged threats against Amtrak employees. As a result of these statements, the police came to Rivera’s home, and Rivera was arrested and faced criminal charges that were ultimately dismissed. These statements were allegedly made by the individual defendants while on the job and concerned matters of interest to Amtrak and its employees. The statements are therefore appropriately characterized as being made within the scope of the individual defendants’ employment for purposes of respondeat superior. See McLachlan v. Bell, 261 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the district court erred by 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers (B) holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior (C) recognizing respondeat superior liability (D) holding that employees violation of his employers policy against drinking on the job does not preclude liability under respondeat superior (E) holding that a plaintiffs direct negligence claims against an employer are not precluded by the employers admission of respondeat superior liability
[EX A]:
holding that the liability reform act preempted in part the common law doctrine of respondeat superior