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.

this case was scheduled for a date approximately six months after the permanent injunction had expired. The procedural posture of this case is comparable to that of Madonna, in which the plaintiffs challenged their confinements while awaiting a hearing to determine whether they should be committed to mental institutions. 295 N.W.2d at 358. The plaintiffs filed petitions for habeas corpus during their pre-hearing confinements, which lasted only a matter of weeks, but the petitions were not adjudicated before their pre-hearing confinements ended. Id. at 358-59. Approximately two and one-half years later, the supreme court held that the case was not moot, reasoning that "some method of review must exist." Id. at 361; see also Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 208 n. 2 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 188 n. 1, 210
Holding statements: (A) holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired (B) holding that district court may award money due under a statute even though time for disbursement had expired (C) holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement (D) holding expired child abuse protective order not moot because of possible effect on future custody determinations (E) holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot
(A)

otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) ('We do not ... believe 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim." (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat'l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng'rs, Inc. v. Lafourche
Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that 1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that 1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand
(B)

choice of forum should be given "paramount consideration." (D.I. 19 at 15-16) (citing Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25) ACI responds that GPH's choice should be accorded "little or no weight" because Delaware is not GPH's "home turf." (See D.I. 12 at 16) (citing In re Link-A-Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223-24 (Fed.Cir.2011)) According to ACI, GPH's home turf is New York, because that is GPH's principal place of business. While there are cases supporting ACI's view that Delaware is not GPH's "home turf," there are likewise cases from this District in which a plaintiffs "home turf' has been construed to include its state of incorporation, which here is Delaware. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d 744, 754 (D.Del.2012); Praxair, 2004 WL 883395, at *1-2 (<HOLDING>). The Court agrees with those cases that
Holding statements: (A) holding that if a domestic corporations principal place of business is abroad the foreign principal place of business cannot be considered for diversity jurisdiction purposes (B) holding that the location of a corporations principal place of business for diversity purposes is the state where the corporation has its headquarters or nerve center (C) holding delaware is home turf as long as company is incorporated in delaware regardless of location of principal place of business (D) holding 1332c does not apply to a domestically incorporated corporation with its principal place of business abroad (E) holding that lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york based in part on lehman banks establishment of its home office in delaware
(C)