With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ] distinguished Swierkiewicz and nowhere expressed an intent to overturn it, we have no basis for concluding that Swierkiewicz is no longer good law.”); Westmoreland v. Prince George’s County, Maryland, Civil Action No. 09-CV-2453 AW, 2010 WL 3369169, at *3 n. 5 (Aug. 23, 2010) (“The Twombly Court made clear that its holding did not contradict the Swierkiewicz rule that a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit [need] not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Goodman v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 716 F.Supp.2d 253, 259 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“Twombly itself held that Swierkiewicz remains good law.”); see also Desrouleaux v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 09-61672-CIV, 2009 WL 5214964, at *2 (S.D.Fla. Dec. 29, 2009) (<HOLDING>). But see Kleehammer v. Monroe Cnty., No.

A: holding that the language by not addressing this matter you will cause the collection process to continue implied that undesirable consequences would follow if she faded to pay in full
B: holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence
C: holding that twombly and iqbal did not necessarily overturn swierkiewicz  and stating this court will continue to follow swierkiewicz in the employment discrimination context
D: holding that the language by not addressing this matter you will cause the collection process to continue implied that undesirable consequences would follow if she failed to pay in full
C.