Detailed Instructions: 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.
Q: their employer, Toledo Hospital, was a "partner" with CSB. This conclusory contention has no merit in view of Ohio's definition of a partnership: " 'Partnership' means an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for-profit formed under section 1776.22 of the Revised Code, a predecessor law, or a comparable law of another jurisdiction." O.R.C. 1776.0(M). I conclude that the allegations in the complaint fail adequately to plead that defendant doctors Tiffany A. Lisk, Susan P. Tourner, Jamie L. Dargart, and John Gregory Rosenthal were state actors. They are entitled to dismissal on that basis alone. B. Nothing Any Toledo Hospital Doctor Did "Shocks the Conscience" i. Plaintiffs' Claim Plaintiffs' complaint claims that the 016 WL 4491837, *4 (E.D. Ky.) (<HOLDING>). Where a complaint describes a defendant's
Holding statements: (A) holding that a conclusory affidavit without supporting evidence is inadequate to establish net worth (B) holding that conclusory allegation of conspiracy without supporting factual averments insufficient to state claim (C) holding conclusory assertions of intent to cause insufficient without supporting facts (D) holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient (E) holding that conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based citations omitted
A:
(C)