Opinion ID: 4090405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the legal conclusions underlying a district court’s dismissal of claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo,6 and its findings of jurisdictional facts for clear error. See, e.g., Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2013). “The burden for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the claim.” Sweet Pea Marine Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). If the plaintiff fails to shoulder that burden, the case must be dismissed. E.g., In re Trusted Net Media Holdings, LLC, 550 F.3d 1035, 4 Tr. doc. no. 25 (Report and Recommendation), at 18. 5 See Tr. doc. no. 26 (Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation); Tr. doc. no. 28 (Order of U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation); Tr. doc. no. 29 (July 8, 2015 Judgment in Favor of the Poarch Band). 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) provides that: “Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction . . . .” 3 Case: 15-13552 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 4 of 24 1042 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[I]f the court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, it must dismiss the entire case.”) (alteration supplied).