policies or when government is entwined in [its] management or control”) (quotation marks omitted). According to the record, the government entities here did nothing more than authorize and approve a contract that provided tax benefits conditioned on PMI opening a plant in Piqua. The factual allegations do not suggest that the government showed any interest in the internal business matters of PMI or that, aside from offering tax incentives, it influenced PMI’s business decisions. See Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 841, 102 S.Ct. 2764 (finding no state action where various government regulators “showed relatively little interest in the school’s personnel matters”). PMI’s challenged actions, moreover, occurred without any involvement whatsoever by any government entity or regulation. See id. (<HOLDING>). Nor does the Workers’ Amended Complaint
holding that there was no state action where the decisions to discharge the petitioners were not compelled or even influenced by any state regulation holding that when neither the petitioners state court briefs nor the state courts decision made any reference to any federal constitutional claim or cited any federal constitutional cases the lack of fundamental error found by the state court was a lack of fundamental error under arizonas state constitution holding that private hospital and physicians who involuntarily committed plaintiff under massachusetts statute were not state actors noting that state regulation even if extensive and receipt of federal funds do not establish state action holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law holding that although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action