With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., 663 F.Supp.2d 883, 899 (C.D.Cal.2009), which surveys California law on whether California employment laws apply to various iterations of employees. Sarviss involved a class challenge to a military contractor’s employment practices brought by a former helicopter pilot. In Sarviss, the court held that although the employee was a California resident, the fact that he performed the “significant majority of his employment outside of California” rendered California’s wage and hour laws inapplicable to his work. Id. Even though the defendant in Sarviss was a Virginia corporation, the court held that the determinative issue is whether the employee principally worked in California. See also Vendetti v. Compass Environmental, Inc., No. 06 CV 3556, 2006 WL 3694852 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 14, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, an unpublished California Court of

A: holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois
B: holding that to state a claim for wage violations under the flsa plaintiffs must provide at least some approximation of the overtime hours that defendants required them to work and a time frame for when those hours were worked
C: holding that federal wage controls applied to state employees too
D: holding illinois wage law only applied where at least some work was performed within the state
D.