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]: Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1321 (S.D.Fla.2004). First, the PSLRA altered Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement by mandating the following: [T]he complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(l)(B). Thus, the PSLRA requires greater specificity than Rule 9(b). Druskin, 299 F.Supp.2d at 1321. Second, the PSLRA raised the standard for pleading scienter by making it clear that a plaintiff can no longer plead scienter generally. In order to properly allege scienter, the plaintiff m 2 n. 2 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has
Holding statements: (A) recognizing defense in securities case (B) recognizing doctrine (C) holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange (D) holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake (E) recognizing the incorporation by reference doctrine in a securities case
[A]: (E)

[Q]: . The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, to whom this case was referred with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(3). 3 . Montandon also alleged Title VII claims against Todd and Ehlers in their personal capacities, as well as constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. His wife, Tish Walker Montandon, claimed loss of consortium. The district court dismissed these claims. Because they have not been raised on appeal, they are deemed abandoned. See Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740-41 (8th Cir.1985). 4 . It remains to be seen whether our holding in Quick will remain the law. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 83 F.3d 118 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert, granted, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2430, 138
Holding statements: (A) holding that title vii does not address samesex harassment (B) holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii (C) holding that title vii does not protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation (D) holding that samcscx sexual harassment claims are actionable under title vii (E) holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine
[A]: (A)

[Q]: Appellant's point regarding expert testimony is moot because we have disposed of the statutory claim. Because we are reversing the judgment for damages, we also reverse the attorney's fees award. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur. TORPY, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion. 1 . Appellees' counsel commendably conceded at oral argument that these assaults did not occur within the scope of the agency. 2 . Because the judge charged the jury that a violation of the statute is negligence, it is impossible to tell whether the verdict for Ap-pellees on the negligence count was premised on a violation of the statute or a violation of the common law duty. 3 . See Hinckley v. Palm Beach County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 801 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). TORPY, J., concurring specially. I do not
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the existence of the special relationship (B) holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student (C) recognizing that a caregiver and patient relationship may be confidential (D) holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school (E) holding special relationship existed between caregiver and developmentally disabled individual
[A]:
(E)