Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Neither the FLSA nor state wage- and-hour laws provide any such indication. Consequently, the Plaintiffs may pursue then-unjust enrichment claims. Although the Court does not conclusively decide the merits of these claims in this motion, it must examine the claims to “make a meaningful determination of the certification issues,” Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d at 1234, and determine whether the state law claims could support a rule 23 action. Should the Court grant the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, however, the Plaintiffs would only have state law claims before this court, depriving the Court of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp., 379 F.3d 1161, 1167 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Regardless of the resolution of the state law 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident (B) holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims (C) holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute (D) holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims (E) holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute
Output (English): holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims