J. J. Kirk, Inc. v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the notice requirement is not 22 jurisdictional because “the statutory text at issue does not refer to jurisdiction, and it is located in the CWA notice subsection, rather than the jurisdiction subsection”
• stating that the analysis for a 12(b)(1) facial challenge “is essentially the same” as a 12(b)(6) analysis
• indicating that, with facial challenges where a movant raises a question of law without contesting the facts, the analysis is “essentially the same” as one under Rule 12(b)(6)
• joining the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits in holding “the CWA notice requirement 10 is not jurisdictional” and acknowledging the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits treat 11 the notice requirement as a jurisdictional rule
• “[T]he court is obligated to dismiss a case sua sponte if it detects a jurisdictional defect.”
• “Rule 12(b)(6) motions . . . are always facial, not factual, challenges to the complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).