the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a), and there is no question that the court had jurisdiction under 29 • U.S.C. § 216(b) to decide whether appellees’ overtime claims were exempt from the FLSA. Even assuming that the court erred in deciding the applicability of 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), that error has no bearing on the court’s power to decide those issues. See Great Lakes Carbon, 624 F.2d at 826. Federal courts have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, Dental Cap. Leasing Corp. v. Martinez (In re Martinez), 721 F.2d 262, 264 (CA9 1983), and adoption of Giles’ argument would disregard those principles that prescribe federal courts’ authority to assume jurisdiction. See Marshall v. Bd. of Ed., 575 F.2d 417 (CA3 1978). But cf. Benson v. Universal Ambul. Serv., 675 F.2d 783 (CA6 1982) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the district
holding that the mere delivery of documents  does not confer jurisdiction holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant holding under flsa holding that the flsa does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the flsa demands holding that the flsa does not confer jurisdiction over ambulance services