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.

Q: in the petition no later than thirty days from the day on which the first defendant was served. Id. at 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). As a general premise, under the "first-served rule," defendants who are properly served within thirty days of the first defendant's service must join in the removal petition. The "failure to do so renders the petition defective." Id. at 1262. Under the facts of Getty, however, the application of the first-served rule did not produce an inequitable result. Nonetheless, recognizing the potential for harsh results, other decisions provide that exceptional circumstances may sometimes require relief from strict application of the rule in order to achieve equitable results. See Milstead Supply Co. v. Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F.Supp. 569, 573 (W.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 482 (5th
Holding statements: (A) holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties (B) holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective (C) holding that dismissal of some but not all of the defendants who had been served with complaint is not a final order (D) holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served (E) holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena

A: holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties
****
Q: commencing an action will be assumed to have waived its right to arbitration when its use of the judicial process is clearly inconsistent with seeking arbitration at a later date." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Applying this law, Judge Weinstein' concluded that choosing to file a claim in court rather than arbitrate constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Id. (citing Digitronics Inventioneering Corp. v. Jameson, 52 A.D.3d 1099, 860 N.Y.S.2d 303 (3d Dep't 2008)). I agree with Judge Weinstein's well-reasoned decision that, if New York law applies, the decision to litigate disputes over unpaid claims in state court precludes Defendants from now seeking to compel arbitration with respect to those same claims. But see Grand Med. Supply, 2012 WL 2577577, at *2 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, I would reach the same result even
Holding statements: (A) holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the faa (B) holding that the framework for determining any disputed issues concerning arbitration must be determined in the context of the faa (C) holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists (D) holding that faa was inapplicable where parties involved in action are not parties to an arbitration agreement under which issues are referable to arbitration (E) holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed

A: holding that mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context fall under the faa
****
Q: established' constitutional rights." Noyola, 846 F.2d at 1025. After weighing James and Mellen's interests, we conclude that this is not one of those rare cases where a public employer violated a clearly established constitutional right. We recognize that James's interest in running for office is significant because "[political speech regarding a public election lies at the core of matters of public concern protected by the First Amendment." Wiggins v. Lowndes County, 363 F.3d 387, 390 (5th Cir.2004). James argues that there is no public interest to weigh against his individual interest in running for office because the ability of the district attorney's office to provide services was not in any way affected by his candidacy. See Vojvodich v. Lopez, 48 F.3d 879, 885-86 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). We disagree. Mellen has presented evidence
Holding statements: (A) holding that termination is an adverse employment action (B) holding that reduction in workload is an adverse employment action (C) holding that conduct causing public humiliation was not an actionable adverse employment action because public perceptions were not a term or condition of employment of the plaintiffs employment (D) holding that an adverse employment action is unconstitutional unless the public employer shows a disruption in its ability to provide services (E) holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action

A:
holding that termination is an adverse employment action
****