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: N.E.2d 968, 973 (Ind.1999). However, when the landowner is a lessor and the lessee is in operational control of the premises, such duty rarely exists. "[A] landlord under many circumstances has no liability to tenants or others for injuries on the property when the tenant is in full control of the leased premises." Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 849 N.E.2d 516, 525 (Ind.2006). "[I]n the absence of statute, covenant, fraud or concealment, a landlord who gives a tenant full control and possession of the leased property will not be liable for personal injuries sustained by the tenant or other persons lawfully' upon the leased property." Olds v. Noel, 857 N.E.2d 1041, 1044 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted), tram, not' sought; cf. Rossow v. Jones, 404 N.E.2d 12, 14 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>), trans. not sought. Yost v. Wabash College, 3
Holding statements: (A) holding over (B) holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship (C) holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building (D) holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control (E) holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas

A: holding over
****
Q: of any immunity provision found in the Act. Instead, the Fifth District found the existence of a duty under the common-law doctrine of public immunity. Long, 178 Ill. App. 3d at 53, 532 N.E.2d at 921. Long is not only legally distinguishable from Havens and Bainter but also factually distinguishable. Unlike the situations in Havens and Bainter, the trees in Long were so overgrown they were physically encroaching the street. In fact, the plaintiff in Long testified that the brush physically struck the side of her car and tore her blouse. Clearly, courts have held that public entities can be held liable for injuries incurred as a result of objects being located on a public road. See O'Connell v. Chicago & North Western R.R. Co., 305 Ill. App. 430, 442, 27 N.E.2d 644, 650 (1940) (<HOLDING>). The duty to remove known encroachments
Holding statements: (A) holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning (B) holding that a city may be held liable on account of the unconstitutional conduct of city officials only if the citys policy or custom played a part in the violation (C) holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract (D) holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city (E) holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight

A:
holding that a city may be held liable on account of the unconstitutional conduct of city officials only if the citys policy or custom played a part in the violation
****