With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their entitlement to liquidated damages as to the 1990 FLSA violation. Thus, the sole remaining issue in this case is the appropriate measure of damages in connection with the 1990 violation. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the State’s liability under the FLSA in 1990 and 1992. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liquidated damages is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . 29 U.S.C. § 206(b) provides that "[e]veiy employer shall pay” employees not less than the minimum wage set by the FLSA in ,29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1) if "in any workweek [the employee] is engaged in commerce.” 2 . The Biggs court also rejected the same argument made by the State in this case concerning the Tenth Amendment. See Biggs, 1 F.3d at 1543 (<HOLDING>). In Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit

A: holding that to the extent compliance with the flsa interferes with the state budgetary process that interference is caused by state law not federal law
B: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
C: holding that the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law
D: holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims
A.