by the plaintiff without affecting the cause of action.”). The November 6, 2014 order does not resolve any of the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims on the merits and acknowledges that those individuals remain free to file their own FLSA actions. In addition, the dismissal of Halle’s collective action allegations is not a final, appealable decision under § 1291. Although that decision arose in the context of a motion to dismiss rather than a mo tion to decertify, it results in a complaint that no longer alleges a collective action. Our decision in Camesi therefore controls: such an order is interlocutory and does not provide a basis for an immediate appeal under § 1291. Camesi, 729 F.3d at 245; see also, e.g., In re: Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., 517 F.3d 246, 247 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Because the decertification is separate from,
holding that the court did not have appellate jurisdiction under  1291 or  1292a3 because the district courts order striking class action allegations did not settle parties rights holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that when dismissal of an appeal will have the practical effect of denying later review of a district courts order appellate jurisdiction under  1291 may be appropriate holding that summary judgment order that does not dispose of all claims between parties does not confer appellate jurisdiction because it is not a final decision under 28 usc  1291 holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules