Cluster 4459130
green
· 79 citation events
across 5 courts.
Showing the 39 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
Tindall v. United States (2026)
Co., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
requiring district courts to resolve disputes over the factual basis for the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction
Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
alteration in original
green
Collector's Coffee Inc. v. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (2025)
When a party challenges the factual basis of jurisdiction, the court may not “assum[e] the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff,” but instead “must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact the resolution of which is necessary to a ruling upon the motion to dismiss.” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
cleaned up
green
Hawkins v. Wilkie (2025)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
Colella v. Androus (2024)
However, when (as here) a defendant challenges the “factual basis” of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, “the court may not deny the motion to dismiss merely by assuming the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff and disputed by the defendant.” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
citation omitted
As evidenced by the administrative record in plaintiffs’ case, the full panoply of procedural rights – including prompt judicial review – was available to plaintiffs when they in fact challenged the imposition of fines and suspension of The Big Board’s license. 3 Plaintiffs filed an answer to the Notice of Infraction on March 9, 2022, and they were offered a telephonic evidentiary hearing 3 When assessing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, “the cour…
green
Lotfizadeh Dehkordi v. Bitter (2023)
Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
Feldman v. F.D.I.C., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting, 216 F.3d at 40
green
Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany (2022)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
green
Ambar v. Federal Republic of Germany (2022)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
green
Center for Biological Diversity (2022)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
Simon v. Republic of Hungary (2021)
Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
alterations in original
green
Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corporation (2021)
That factual dispute matters because Defendants challenge the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and, thus, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that he submitted a claim to the MCC, Thomas v. Nicholson, 539 F. Supp. 2d 205, 213 (D.D.C. 2008), even at this threshold stage of the litigation, see Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
Ameen v. U.S. Department of State (2021)
Feldman v. F.D.I.C., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
alteration and omission in original
green
National Council for Adoption v. Antony Blinken (2021)
Cir. 2005); cf. Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
a district court “must give [plaintiffs] ample opportunity to 3 We review the district court’s standing determination de novo, Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015
green
Rosenkrantz v. Inter-American Development Bank (2021)
Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
alteration in original
green
United States v. All Assets Held in Account Number 80020796, in the Name of Doraville Properties Corporation,… (2020)
Where there is “a dispute over the factual basis of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction[,] . . . the court may not . . . merely . . . assum[e] the truth of the facts alleged.” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quotation omitted
green
Ibrahim v. U.S. Department of State (2020)
Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
alteration in original
green
State of California v. Donald J. Trump (2020)
But “[w]here a motion to dismiss a complaint presents a dispute over the factual basis of the court’s subject matter 7 jurisdiction[,] . . . the court may not deny the motion to dismiss merely by assuming the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff and disputed by the defendant.” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
green
Robles-Rodriguez v. Municipality of Ceiba (2020)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 352 (D.C.
green
Simon v. Republic of Hungary (2020)
Feldman v. F.D.I.C., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
green
Brown v. Wmata (2020)
Feldman v. F.D.I.C., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
green
Usoyan v. Republic of Turkey (2020)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
green
Kurd v. Republic of Turkey (2020)
Corp., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
green
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (2019)
The Court may rely on those factual allegations in the complaint that the defendant has not controverted with competent evidence, and it may also consider the “evidentiary material in the record,” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
Nurriddin v. Perez (2018)
Courts are generally required, “prior to any discovery, to accord [plaintiffs] the benefit of all reasonable inferences” from the “allegations in the complaint and evidentiary material in the record,” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
Sellers, Jr. v. Anthem, Inc. (2018)
While district courts “must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact the resolution of which is necessary to a ruling upon the motion to dismiss,” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
quoting Phoenix Consulting, Inc. v. Republic of Angola, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
But, “[w]here a motion to dismiss a complaint present[s] a dispute over the factual basis of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction[,] . . . the court may not deny the motion to dismiss merely by assuming the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff and disputed by the defendant.” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
green
Public Citizen, Inc. v. Trump (2018)
But, “[w]here a motion to dismiss a complaint present[s] a dispute over the factual basis of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction[,] . . . the court may not deny the motion to dismiss merely by assuming the truth of the facts alleged by the plaintiff and disputed by the defendant.” Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
See Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation (2023)
Id. (quoting Phoenix Consulting, 216 F.3d at 40 ) (internal quotations marks omitted); see also Feldman v. F.D.I.C., 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.
green
U.S. Auto Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner (2019)
See, e.g., Odyssey Marine Expl., Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 657 F.3d 1159, 1169-1170 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Feldman v. FDIC, 879 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.