in a federal statute according to state law); Desai v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir.2008) (federal court applied state criminal law where "there is explicit reference to state law in the text of the [federal] statute”); Dias v. Elique, 436 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir.2006) (court applied Nevada law in § 1983 action to determine whether a federally recognized property interest and qualified immunity existed); Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 343-44 (9th Cir. 1996) (court applied California law to determine whether state law claims arose under federal law for jurisdictional purposes). 7 . It is worth noting that appellants may be unable to sue California for failure to comply with NCLB. See, e.g., Newark Parents Ass’n v. Newark Pub. Sch., 547 F.3d 199, 214 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); cf. Flores v. Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140, 1176 n.
holding that congress did not intend to give individuals a right to enforce  specific provisions of  nclb holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983 recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing  1983 holding that the party did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration clause