Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180312_0000309.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:26:57+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION; and RACHEL P. LEITON, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION, Defendants.
This case is before the Court on the consent of the parties to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 12.) Now before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Docket No. 18), to which Plaintiff filed a response (Docket No. 21), and Defendants filed a reply. (Docket No. 22.) The Court has carefully considered the motion. The Court has taken judicial notice of the Court's file and has considered the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The Court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
On August 16, 2017, Defendants filed the subject motion. (Docket No. 18.) Defendants argue that because the claim file has been produced, Plaintiff's claim is moot, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court agrees, and dismisses Plaintiff's case.
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a court may dismiss a complaint for “lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction. See Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974). Motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) take two forms. First, a party may attack the facial sufficiency of the complaint, in which case the court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true. Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000, 1002-03 (10th Cir. 1995). Second, if a party attacks the factual assertions regarding subject matter jurisdiction through affidavits and other documents, the Court may make its own findings of fact. See Id. at 1003. A court's consideration of evidence outside the pleadings will not convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Id. Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice. Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006).
Article III of the Constitution requires that the federal courts render decisions only where there is a live case or controversy between parties. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. An “actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 130 (2009). If circumstances change during the pendency of the case that extinguish a party's legally cognizable interest in the action, the case is moot. Green v. Haskell Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 568 F.3d 784, 794 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). Mootness is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1301-02 (10th Cir. 2001).
Mootness has two aspects: (i) whether the issues are live; and (ii) whether the parties have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. See Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 2011). The critical question is “whether granting a present determination of the issues offered will have some effect in the real world.” Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 186 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 1999). When circumstances change such that the court is unable to grant effective relief that has some effect in the real world, a live case or controversy no longer exists and the case is, therefore, moot. See McKeen v. U.S. Forest Serv., 615 F.3d 1244, 1255 (10th Cir. 2010). Demonstrating that a case is moot is a heavy burden and lies with the party alleging that the action is moot. See id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.