Opinion ID: 787202
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantiality Doctrine

Text: 16 Under the substantiality doctrine, federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are `so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.' Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579, 24 S.Ct. 553, 48 L.Ed. 795 (1904)). Claims are deemed insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial. Id. at 538, 94 S.Ct. 1372. 17 Turning this doctrine on its head — and to their own advantage — plaintiffs contend that if the complaint was as frivolous as the district court found it, then the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion for attorneys' fees. MetLife responds that there is nothing in Hagans to suggest that the Supreme Court intended to preclude an award of attorneys' fees in cases where the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 18 We reject plaintiffs' argument. The district court and a prior panel of this Court properly exercised jurisdiction over plaintiffs' underlying § 1983 complaint. Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 149 F.Supp.2d 80 (S.D.N.Y.2001), aff'd, 316 F.3d 308 (2d Cir.2003). In dismissing, and affirming the dismissal of, plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, both the district court and this Court implicitly recognized subject matter jurisdiction. It is inarguable that a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction. See Corbett v. MacDonald Moving Servs., Inc., 124 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir.1997) (Every court in rendering a judgment tacitly, if not expressly, determines its jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir.1985) (awarding attorneys' fees despite dismissal under the substantiality doctrine as `an appropriate deterrent to future frivolous suits' (quoting Callow v. Amerace Corp., 681 F.2d 1242, 1243 (9th Cir.1982))).