DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
750 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
750 KB
Summary
This document is a legal motion filed by the United States government in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The U.S. requests the dismissal of a petition filed by 'Jane Doe #1' and 'Jane Doe #2' under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The primary argument for dismissal is that the court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction required to hear the case.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| JANE DOE #1 | Petitioner |
Named as a petitioner in the case JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, vs. UNITED STATES.
|
| JANE DOE #2 | Petitioner |
Named as a petitioner in the case JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, vs. UNITED STATES.
|
| MARRA | Judge |
Mentioned in the case number: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON.
|
| JOHNSON | Judge |
Mentioned in the case number: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA | government agency |
The court where the motion is filed.
|
| UNITED STATES | government |
The respondent in the case, filing the motion to dismiss.
|
| Grupo Dataflux | company |
Party in a cited court case: Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P.
|
| Atlas Global Group, L.P. | company |
Party in a cited court case: Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P.
|
| Harrell & Sumner Contracting Co. | company |
Party in a cited court case: Harrell & Sumner Contracting Co. v. Peabody Petersen Co.
|
| Peabody Petersen Co. | company |
Party in a cited court case: Harrell & Sumner Contracting Co. v. Peabody Petersen Co.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The United States filed a sealed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, where Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are petitioners against the United States, the respondent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location of the United States District Court hearing the case.
|
Relationships (3)
Jane Doe #1 is a Petitioner in a case against the United States, which is the Respondent.
Jane Doe #2 is a Petitioner in a case against the United States, which is the Respondent.
They are co-petitioners in the same legal action against the United States.
Key Quotes (3)
"Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."Source
— Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P.
(Cited in a footnote as legal precedent for challenging jurisdiction.)
DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
Quote #1
"a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings"Source
— United States v. Giraldo-Prado
(Cited in a footnote to support the timing of the jurisdictional challenge.)
DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
Quote #2
"challenge subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings."Source
— Unnamed legal source
(Quoted to describe the nature of a factual attack on a court's subject matter jurisdiction.)
DOJ-OGR-00000306.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document