Legal Opinion
Miklaski v. United States
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided December 8, 1997No. 2:97-cv-71212Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EX-PARTE MOTION TO ADVANCE THE CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCHEDULING AN EV-IDENTIARY HEARING
DUGGAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs “Emergency Ex-Parte Motion to Advance the Case for the Purpose of Scheduling an Evidentiary Hearing” and defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6). Because the Court believes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this action, the Court grants defendants’ motion and denies plaintiffs motion.
Background
From…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Michael J. Geiselman v. United States of America, Michael J. Geiselman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- Brown v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991
- Parker v. BainCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.