Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the twelfth action, where the union plaintiffs assert the Labor Management Relations Act claim, the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants on only the ERISA claims does not dispose of all the claims between the parties. Accordingly, for purposes of appeal, the plaintiffs in that action sought the district court's certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), which was granted. Because the twelve cases were not consolidated for trial, even though the district court's order granting summary judgment to Unisys on Counts I and II of the second amended consolidated complaint does not dispose of all of the claims in the twelve consolidated actions, it is a final, appealable order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Hall v. Wilkerson, 926 F.2d 311, 314 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 10 . On review of the district court’s award 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the dispositive factor in determining whether an order disposing of less than all claims in a consolidated case is appealable is whether the consolidation was for all purposes (B) holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment (C) holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated (D) holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant (E) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
Output (English): holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated