state an unjust enrichment claim under Montana law, and the district court properly dismissed its claims against PPL and Encana. Moreover, to the extent the plaintiffs’ claims against PPL and Encana were brought under § 1983, the district court properly dismissed them because the plaintiffs failed to allege that the companies violated the single mothers’ federal constitutional or statutory rights and because the companies were not a S.Ct 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948)). 4 . In determining whether MPC’s lobbying efforts constituted "state action” sufficient to implicate the federal Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, we also necessarily determine whether MPC’s action occurred "under color of state law” within the meaning of the Supreme Court's § 1983 jurisprudence. See Brentwo th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 6 . To the extent the plaintiffs allege that
holding that the state police is a state agency holding that utah state bars publishing of a newspaper was state action since the utah state bar is a governmental entity established by state law and created as an administrative agency of the utah supreme court holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver