Opinion ID: 785878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ventas's cross-appeal

Text: 44 In its original order, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. Pratt, 273 B.R. at 116. The court subsequently amended its dismissal as being without prejudice because the order was limited solely to the question of whether jurisdiction was proper in the Western District of Kentucky, and did not reach the merits of the parties' underlying substantive claims. In doing so, the court explained that it had not intended to preclude Plaintiffs from litigating their claims in an appropriate venue, i.e., the Delaware bankruptcy court. 45 On its face, the motion presented by Ventas to the district court was brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which authorizes a dismissal for failure to state a claim. A dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a `judgment on the merits,' and is therefore done with prejudice. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981). By contrast, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not operate as an adjudication on the merits for preclusive purposes. Holloway v. Brush, 220 F.3d 767, 778 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) (quotation marks omitted). This court has explained: 46 The rationale behind this is that merely because one court does not have jurisdiction over a dispute does not necessarily mean that another court is precluded from properly exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Moreover, if a court does not have jurisdiction over a matter, it cannot properly reach the merits of the case. 47 Wilkins v. Jakeway, 183 F.3d 528, 533 n. 6 (6th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). 48 Ventas is technically correct that the district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim pursuant to Ventas's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and that such dismissals are presumptively with prejudice. But a plain reading of the district court's opinion and amended order indicates that the district court's basis for dismissing Plaintiffs' claim was jurisdictional in nature and was therefore without prejudice. Because the district court amended its order to be without prejudice, Plaintiffs were able, while the present appeal was being held in abeyance, to pursue their claim in the Delaware bankruptcy court. Whether the district court erred in amending its order is therefore moot.