Ditech Fin., L.L.C. v. Balimunkwe

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether a defendant was immune under state law implicated both the merits of the case and the court’s jurisdiction under the FTCA
• holding that whether a defendant was immune under state law implicated both the merits of the case and the court’s jurisdiction under the FTCA
• holding that in FTCA case, when “pleading a claim and pleading jurisdiction entirely overlap,” the district court may dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6), or both
• holding that although a motion to dismiss may invoke both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), where the Court “lack[s] subject-matter jurisdiction for [any] non-merits reason[] . . . it must dismiss the case under just Rule 12(b)(1)”
• holding that although a motion to dismiss may invoke both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), where the Court “lack[s] subject-matter jurisdiction for [any] non-merits reason[] . . . it must dismiss the case under just Rule 12(b)(1)”
• holding that although a motion to dismiss may invoke both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), where the Court “lack[s] subject-matter jurisdiction for [any] non-merits reason[ ] . . . it must dismiss the case under just Rule 12(b)(1)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).