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
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,123 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM-00498-RMB Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11/2019 Page 2 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,
vs.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
/
UNITED STATES’ SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The United States hereby requests that this Court enter an order dismissing these
proceedings and the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
3771 (DE 1, the “Petition”), through which Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have
advanced claims pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.¹ This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because
proceedings and the Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
3771 (DE 1, the “Petition”), through which Petitioners Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 have
advanced claims pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.¹ This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because
¹ See, e.g., Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004)
(“Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final
judgment.”); United States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (recognizing
that “a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings”); Harrell
& Sumner Contracting Co. v. Peabody Petersen Co., 546 F.2d 1227, 1229 (5th Cir. 1977)
(“[U]nder Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by motion of a party or otherwise.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the
present motion, the United States seeks dismissal of Petitioners’ claims based on both a legal and
factual challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This Court may properly consider
and weigh evidence beyond Petitioners’ allegations when evaluating such a challenge to the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction:
(“Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final
judgment.”); United States v. Giraldo-Prado, 150 F.3d 1328, 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (recognizing
that “a party may raise jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the proceedings”); Harrell
& Sumner Contracting Co. v. Peabody Petersen Co., 546 F.2d 1227, 1229 (5th Cir. 1977)
(“[U]nder Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be
raised at any time by motion of a party or otherwise.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the
present motion, the United States seeks dismissal of Petitioners’ claims based on both a legal and
factual challenge to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This Court may properly consider
and weigh evidence beyond Petitioners’ allegations when evaluating such a challenge to the
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction:
Factual attacks [on a Court’s subject matter jurisdiction] . . . “challenge subject
matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings.” In resolving a factual
attack, the district court “may consider extrinsic evidence such as testimony and
affidavits.” Since such a motion implicates the fundamental question of a trial
matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings.” In resolving a factual
attack, the district court “may consider extrinsic evidence such as testimony and
affidavits.” Since such a motion implicates the fundamental question of a trial
1
DOJ-OGR-00000306
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document