TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: court is without power to extend that authority beyond the scope granted by the statute, and no District of Columbia court has ever found service upon such an unauthorized official to be valid against a foreign corporation. Accordingly, we conclude that service upon the Director was ineffective to bring Am-eritrade within the jurisdiction of the district court. Finally, Gorman urges that it would be unfair if a foreign corporation, lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia because it does business here, could evade that jurisdiction by keeping its agents out of the District and hence beyond the range of effective service of process. If such a loophole does exist, the legislature can, of course, remove it by amending 13-384 to provide an alternative method 1) (<HOLDING>); Oriental Trading Co. v. Firetti, 236 F.3d
Holding statements: (A) holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction (B) holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort (C) holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction (D) holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction (E) holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts

SOLUTION: holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort

PROBLEM: only as part of the presentations to a group, or whether appellees had any conversations with Hoagland, and, if so, the content of those conversations. Appellees merely stated they did not make misrepresentations to Hoagland in Texas regarding the business transaction made the basis of the captioned case. We conclude these statements are unsupported factual and legal conclusions. See Ennis, 164 S.W.3d at 703-04 (affirming trial court's exclusion of nonresident's statements that he did not have a substantial connection with Texas, plaintiffs' claims did not result from and were not related to any of affiant's activities in Texas, affiant did not have any continuing or systematic contacts with Texas, and affiant did not commit any tort in Texas); see also Wright, 137 S.W.3d at 250 n. 8 (<HOLDING>). Kassoffs affidavit is similarly concluso-ry.
Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs allegation that defendants committed torts in texas was sufficient to bring defendants under the longarm statute (B) holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied (C) holding plaintiffs allegation that defendants committed torts in houston texas was sufficient to bring defendants under the longarm statute for plaintiffs claims of various forms of fraud and negligent misrepresentation (D) recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas (E) holding nonresidents statement that he had committed no torts in texas was properly excluded as conclusory

SOLUTION: holding plaintiffs allegation that defendants committed torts in texas was sufficient to bring defendants under the longarm statute

PROBLEM: and services bearing counterfeit marks) ... section 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property) ... (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 ... 18 U.S.C. 1961(1). The Amended Complaint alleges two or more related instances of mail fraud, wire fraud, trafficking in counterfeit goods, money laundering, interstate transportation of converted goods, tax fraud and bankruptcy fraud. Amended Complaint, 249-256. Before determining if the Amended Complaint implicates Ravinder Chawla, the Court will first review the pleading standard applicable to each predicate act. Pleading Standards for Predicate Acts Where, as here, Plaintiffs rely, inter alia, on a series of fraud-based predicate acts (mail, wire, and bankrupt (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>). Having determined what the Amended Complaint
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard (B) holding that transmission of photographs by means of the internet constitutes transportation in interstate commerce (C) holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce under either 18 usc 2314 which prohibits interstate transportation of stolen goods or 18 usc 2312 which specifically prohibits interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and airplanes (D) holding that the government need not prove that interstate transport was foreseeable in order to obtain a conviction under 18 usc 2314 which prohibits the interstate transportation of stolen goods (E) holding that crime of interstate transportation of anothers property subject to notice pleading standard

SOLUTION:
recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard