Teacher: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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: these allegations and materials are sufficient to plausibly allege ACI and Adderley are an integrated enterprise under the FLSA. See Perez v. Westchester Foreign Autos, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 6091(ER), 2013 WL 749497, at **7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2013). Plaintiffs also allege that the proposed individual defendants were owners and corporate officers of Adderley and ACI, and had authority over matters including payroll, personnel, and the supervision and hiring and firing of employees of both companies. (PAC 43-130.) Discovery allegedly supports the assertion that Messers. Presser, Misseri, and Cestaro are the sole shareholders of both Adderley and ACI. (Kessler Decl. 8). Under the FLSA, these allegations are sufficient to plausibly allege employer status. See Irizarry, 722 F.3d at 116 (<HOLDING>); Perez, 2013 WL 749497, at *8. The NYLL
Holding statements: (A) holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company (B) holding owner of limited liability company may be personally liable to third party if owner acts as agent for company and fails to disclose existence and identity of principal (C) holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa (D) holding that the responsibility of another did not absolve the plaintiff of his own responsibility where the plaintiff helped incorporate the company served as vice president and president owned varying levels of stock and possessed authority to hire and fire (E) holding in context of control person analysis that because defendant founded the company and was its largest shareholder he may be able to influence the company
Student:
(A)