State of Missouri et al v. Biden et al
| Missouri Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | Joseph S Dueker |
| Case #: | 4:21-cv-01300 |
| Nature of Suit | 899 Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| Cause | 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act |
| Case Filed: | Oct 29, 2021 |
| Terminated: | May 23, 2024 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Apr 27, 2022 3:30 AM CDT |
|
Defendant
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
in his official capacity as the President of the United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
United States of America
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
John M. Tenaglia
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Jeffrey A. Koses
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Karla S. Jackson
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Lesley A. Field
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Jeffrey Zients
Washington, DC 20500
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Shalanda Young
Washington, DC 20500
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
United States Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20415 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Kiran Ahuja
Washington, DC 20415
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Robin Carnahan
Washington, DC 20405
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Safer Federal Workforce Task Force
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Office of Management and Budget
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
General Services Administration
1800 F Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20405 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Montana
215 North Sanders P.O. Box 201401
Helena, MT 59620 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Arkansas
323 Center Street Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Alaska
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Iowa
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Missouri
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of New Hampshire
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Wyoming
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of South Dakota
1302 East Highway 14 Suite 1
Pierre, SD 57501 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of North Dakota
500 North 9th Street
Bismarck, ND 58501 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
State of Nebraska
2115 State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509 |
Represented By
|
GPO
Dec 20 2021
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) is sustained. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to expedite preliminary injunction briefing (Doc. 10) is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 12/20/2021. (JMP) |
|
|
GPO
May 23 2024
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) In sum, the Court finds no exception to the mootness doctrine applies in this instance. As a result, the Court dismisses this action because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Dalton v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 46465 (8th Cir. 2004) ("'a district court is generally barred from dismissing a case with prejudice if it concludes subject matter jurisdiction is absent.'"); Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("If an issue is moot in the Article III sense, we have no discretion and must dismiss [it] for lack of jurisdiction."). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate judgment accompanies this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker on 5/23/2024. (CBL) |
| Docket last updated: 4 hours ago |
| Thursday, May 23, 2024 | ||
| 75 | 75
order
Judgment - (Case)
Thu 05/23 4:00 PM
JUDGMENT. In accordance with the Memorandum and Order entered this day and incorporated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker on 5/23/2024. (CBL) |
|
| 74 | 74
11
pgs
order
Memorandum & Order
Thu 05/23 3:58 PM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) In sum, the Court finds no exception to the mootness doctrine applies in this instance. As a result, the Court dismisses this action because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Dalton v. NPC Int'l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting County of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 46465 (8th Cir. 2004) ("'a district court is generally barred from dismissing a case with prejudice if it concludes subject matter jurisdiction is absent.'"); Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("If an issue is moot in the Article III sense, we have no discretion and must dismiss [it] for lack of jurisdiction."). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appropriate judgment accompanies this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker on 5/23/2024. (CBL) |
|