{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-80736",
    "date": "07/13/2010",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 196 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2010 Page 14 of 20\n\njurisdiction to hear the case.”)); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) (“The question of ripeness ‘goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a court “to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights,” they are “asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that is not yet ripe for decision”), reh’g & reh’g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, __ Fed. App’x __ (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table).\n\nConclusion\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing the Petitioners’ claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\n\n13\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000318",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 196 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2010 Page 14 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "jurisdiction to hear the case.”)); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) (“The question of ripeness ‘goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a court “to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights,” they are “asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that is not yet ripe for decision”), reh’g & reh’g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, __ Fed. App’x __ (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Conclusion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing the Petitioners’ claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000318",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Jacksonville",
      "Lee County"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/13/2010",
      "Jun. 29, 2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-80736",
      "09-15629",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000318"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}