Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bell v. Arruda

United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

March 12, 2014

RICHARD N. BELL, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ARRUDA, Defendant.

ENTRY AND NOTICE

TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

“Before deciding any case on the merits, a federal court must ensure the presence of both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. . . . [U]nless both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction have been established, a district court must dismiss the suit without addressing the substance of the plaintiffs claim.” Kromrey v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 423 F.App'x 624, 626 (7th Cir. 2011). Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the Court should not have ruled on the Rule 12(b)(6) portion of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6). That ruling is now RESCINDED, and as a result, (1) Part III.C. of the Entry issued on May 7, 2014 is VACATED, and (2) the action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

An Amended Judgment consistent with this Entry and Notice shall now issue.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.