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. 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.
Input: Peaslee simultaneously moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction; his attorney submitted an affidavit asserting that Peaslee was not domiciled in New York and had not transacted any business in New York either on his own account or on behalf of the Yagi entities or Euro Brokers. The Yagi defendants filed similar motions on February 3,1995. On February 6, 1995, plaintiffs moved to remand to the state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that diversity was incomplete because Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. was a limited partnership at least one partner of which was a citizen of the United States domiciled abroad, citing Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 68-69 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1222, 112 S.Ct. 3036, 120 L.Ed.2d 905 (1992) (<HOLDING>). At a status conference on February 10, 1995,
Holding statements: (A) holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether 9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice (B) holding that alien on student visa could not lawfully possess intent to be domiciled in the united states (C) holding that under the texas uniform partnership act the government was entitled to collect the tax liability indisputably a partnership debt from any one of the general partners (D) holding that a diversity suit cannot be maintained against a partnership one of the partners of which is a united states citizen domiciled abroad (E) holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
Output:
holding that general partners must notify limited partners of partnership opportunity to purchase adjacent property but not addressing whether 9404 requires affirmative consent of partners after such notice