Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff’s status as an employee—and conversely, the defendant’s as an employer—is “an element of an ADEA claim”
• holding that consideration of matters outside of the complaint requires the Court to convert motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and provide sufficient notice to the parties
• holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action, the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiff’s case
• noting that a factual attack challenges “the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings . . . are considered.”
• finding a 12(b)(1) dismissal to be on facial grounds because the district judge did not resolve questions of fact
• discussing the definition of “employer” and “employee” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) as both a jurisdictional issue and an issue bearing on the merits of the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).