{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "209",
    "date": "07/08/2019",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-80736 Document 209 Entered on Filed 07/08/2019 Page 2 of 20\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA\nCASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON\nJANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2,\nPetitioners,\nvs.\nUNITED STATES,\nRespondent.\n\nUNITED STATES' SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION\nThe 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\n1 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:\nFactual 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 court's jurisdiction,\n1",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2,\nPetitioners,\nvs.\nUNITED STATES,\nRespondent.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES' SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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 court's jurisdiction,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000306",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane Doe #1",
      "Jane Doe #2"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/08/2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON",
      "9:08-cv-80736",
      "209",
      "DE 1",
      "18 U.S.C. Section 3771",
      "541 U.S. 567",
      "150 F.3d 1328",
      "546 F.2d 1227",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000306"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}