006-02.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: house-oversight-doj
Pages: 15
Text status: Searchable text available
OCR confidence: 0.8987917108377012
Extracted text

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6-2 Filed 07/11/19 Page1of15 EXHIBIT 2 DOJ-OGR-00000305 

Case 9:08-CAS® 232 KAIO498cRMEnt 2decumMenicfed orFtes6 DEG o7RAGeCL Sf Page 2 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 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. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because ' 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 (Sth Cir. 1977) (“[UJ]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 …
Open in the interactive archive →