With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". insufficient to establish that Petitioner’s actions vis-a-vis the named client pose an “immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare” as required by section, 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2015). See also Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Health, 915 So.2d 669, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“Where, as here, no hearing was held prior to the entry of the emergency order, every element necessary to its validity must appear on the face of the order.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, Respondent’s order lacks any “particularized” allegations of fact demonstrating an immediate danger of continuing harm. See St. Michael’s Academy, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families, 965 So.2d 169, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see also Bio-Med Plus, 915 So.2d at 672-73 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the order is not “ ‘narrowly

A: holding it is not enough for the emergency suspension order merely to allege statutory violations the allegations of continuing harm must be particularized not general and conclusory or related to stale actions
B: holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
C: holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer
D: holding plaintiffs must provide particularized allegations as to why demand would be futile to survive a motion to dismiss conclusory allegations are not enough
A.