Task: songer_exhaust

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that it would not hear the appeal for one of the following reasons: a) administrative remedies had not been exhausted; or b) the issue was not ripe for judicial action?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
Katherine Lumpkin appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her tort complaint against the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. She contends that the District Court erred in holding that the municipality is immune from suit under Arkansas law. Her complaint in this diversity action states that she was severely burned in 1958 by the City’s negligent placement of “smudge pots” containing hot oil near her home. The City moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The District Court issued a memorandum and order dismissing the complaint because, under Arkansas law on the date of the injury, tort actions against cities were barred by the doctrine of municipal immunity. We affirm the District Court’s dismissal on the basis of its memorandum.
Lumpkin also challenges the constitutionality of the Arkansas sovereign immunity doctrine. We find no merit in the challenge.
The order of the District Court is affirmed.
. Plaintiff, who was three years old at the time of her injury, filed her complaint the day before her twenty-first birthday.
. Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.
. The parties agreed that Arkansas law was applicable to the action.

Question: Did the court determine that it would not hear the appeal for one of the following reasons: a) administrative remedies had not been exhausted; or b) the issue was not ripe for judicial action?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D